A 


THE 


REVIEWERS  REVIEWED; 


A   SUPPLEMENT   TO   THE   "WAR   BETWEEN 
THE    STATES,"    ETC., 


WITH 


A2T  APPENDIX  IN  REVIEW  OF  « KECONSTEUCTION," 
80    CALLED. 


BY 

ALEXANDER   H.   STEPHENS. 


NEW  YORK: 
D.    APPLETON    AND    COMPANY, 

549  &  551   BROADWAY. 
1872. 


ENTERED,  according  to  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1872,  by 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS, 
In  the  office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington,  D.  C. 


TO 


ADAM     L.    ALEXANDER, 

The  only  survivor  of  my  early  benefactors,  a  gentleman  dis 
tinguished  for  integrity,  piety,  urbanity,  and  high  culture,  in 
all  that  pertains  to  Art,  Science,  and  Literature,  this  volume 
is  most  respectfully  and  gratefully  inscribed,  with  a  fervent 
wish  that  his  days  may  yet  be  continued  for  many  years  to 
come,  in  the  enjoyment  of  that  "  otium  cum  dignitate  "  which 
always  imparts  a  hallowing  charm  to  the  crowning  glory  of  a 
long,  happy,  prosperous,  and  well-spent  life. 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 


LIBERTY  HALL,  CRAWFORDVILLE,  GA. 
January  1,  1872. 


335920 


PREFACE. 


THE  two  volumes  of  the  "  Constitutional  Yiew  of  the  Late 
"War  Between  the  States,"  etc.,  have  been  before  the  public 
nearly  two  years.  The  object  of  the  writer  of  that  work  was, 
with  perfect  impartiality,  and  without  any  of  the  bias  or  preju 
dice  which  usually  accompanies  passion,  from  any  cause  what 
ever,  to  vindicate  the  truth  of  history,  that  posterity  may  have 
a  clear  perception  and  understanding  of  those  principles  of 
Local  Self-Government,  and  of  Federative  Union,  upon  which 
the  Free  Institutions  of  the  United  States  were  founded  and 
established  by  the  Fathers;  and  upon  the  maintenance  of 
which  alone  he  believes  these  Institutions  can  be  preserved 
and  perpetuated. 

Since  the  publication  of  the  work,  he  has  closely  watched 
the  criticisms  which  have  been  made  upon  it  from  all  quarters, 
to  see  to  what  extent  any  attempt  would  be  made  to  assail  the 
facts  therein  set  forth,  or  the  positions  therein  assumed.  He 
did  not  expect  that  a  work  so  directly  at  issue,  in  matters  of 
public  record,  with  the  current  histories  of  the  day,  would  es 
cape  criticism  and  assault.  In  this  he  has  not  been  disap 
pointed.  Attacks  have  been  made  from  several  high  quarters. 

It  is  his  object,  in  this  volume,  to  give  to  the  public  of  the 
present  generation,  and  to  leave  for  all  coming  generations,  in 
an  induring  form,  his  answer  to  each  one  of  these  attacks  which 
have  come  to  his  notice  from  a  source  deserving  attention. 


6  PKEFACE. 

Each  assailant  has  been  treated  separately  and  dealt  fairly  by, 
as  the  author  believes.  Whatever  opinion  may  be  entertained 
as  to  results,  it  is  not  thought  by  him  that  any  one  will  ven 
ture  to  say,  that  the  adversary  or  objector  in  any  of  the  several 
cases  has  not  been  squarely  met,  and  upon  his  own  grounds. 

It  is,  therefore,  left  for  an  enlightened  and  just  public,  now 
and  hereafter,  to  determine  whether  any  successful  assault  has 
as  yet  been  made  upon  what  are  claimed  in  the  work  to  be 
irrefutable  truths  and  irresistible  conclusions.  It  is  also  left 
for  the  same  public  to  determine  whether  the  doctrines  of  the 
two  volumes,  as  therein  set  forth,  and  herein  maintained,  are 
in  accordance  with  the  essential  principles  of  Public  Liberty 
taught  by  the  Founders  of  our  Federal  Eepublic,  or  are 
of  a  character  so  "pernicious"  that  they  should  be  "sup 
pressed^  according  to  the  public  announcement  of  Mr.  At 
torney-General  Ackerman. 

"  Audi  alter  am  partem." 

"Prove  all  things;  hold  fast  that  which  is  good." 

These  are  maxims  which,  throughout  these  discussions,  have 
governed  the  action  of  the 

AUTHOR. 


CONTENTS. 


ARTICLE    I. 

MM 

MB.  STEPHENS'  REVIEW  OF  DR.  A.  T.  BLEDSOE'S  REVIEW  OP  THE  "  WAR  BETWEEN 

THE  STATES,"  ETC., 9 

ARTICLE   II. 

I.— Mr.  Stephens'  Reply  to  Hon.  S.  S.  Nicholas,  of  Kentucky,      ...      39 

II. — Rejoinder  of  Judge  Nicholas, 60 

III.— Mr.  Stephens'  Sur-rejoinder  to  Judge  Nicholas, 63 

ARTICLE    III. 

THE  CURTIS"  CONTROVERSY,  OR  MR.  WEBSTER'S  MODIFIED  VIEWS,         .        .  61 

I.— Hon.  George  T.  Curtis'  Review  of  the  Work, 61 

II.— Mr.  Stephens' Reply,       •  v '>'."*;•''    .        .        .        .  "  "v  "   .        .  91 

III.— Rejoinder  of  Mr.  Curtis, .'      .        .  114 

IT. — Sur-rejoinder  of  Mr.  Stephens,    . 123 

ARTICLE    IY. 

MR.  STEPHENS'  REPLY  TO  HON.  HORACE  GREELEY'S  CRITICISM  ON  THE  WORK,      .     137 

ARTICLE    V. 

THE  SUBJECT  OF  THE  ELECTION  OF  MR.  DAVIS  TO  THE  PRESIDENQY  OF  THE  CON 
FEDERATE-STATES,  .        .        .        .       >    ;  ,..    ...»,--,/».-:«.,  147 
I. — Letter  of  Hon.  Alexander  M.  Clayton,  of  Mississippi,  criticising  Mr. 

Stephens' Statement  concerning  it,  .      ~.    <   -    .    ^  •     .<;-..._.  147 

II. — Reply  of  Mr.  Stephens,  with  his  Statement  upon  the  Subject,     .        .  149 

IH.— Letter  of  Hon.  Martin  J.  Crawford  upon  the  same  Subject,    .       ''*''•'    .  151 


8  CONTENTS. 

ARTICLE   VI. 

FAO* 

CONFEDERATE  INACTIVITY  AFTER  THE  FIRST  BATTLE  OF  MAN  ASS  AS,  1861.— 

CRITICISM  OF  HON.  E.  BARKSDALE,  OF  MISSISSIPPI,  ON  THIS  POINT,  .  155 
I.— Editorial  of  the  Augusta  (Ga.)  Constitutionalist,  31st  July,  1870,  by 
J.  R.  Randall:   with  Letters  from  President  Davis  and  General 

Joseph  E.  Johnston, 155 

II. — Letters  referred  to  by  Mr.  Randall, 157 

III. — The  interesting  Paper  referred  to  by  Mr.  Randall,        ....  162 
IY. — Conclusion  of  Mr.  Randall's  Editorial  in  which  the  Foregoing  Letters 

and  Paper  had  been  incorporated,    .  . 167 

V.— Mr.  Stephens'  Rejoinder  to  Mr.  Barksdale's  Reply  to  his  First  Letter,  169 

VI.— Mr.  Barksdale's  Sur-rejoinder, 171 

VII.— Mr.  Stephens'  Letter  in  Rebuttal, 173 

ARTICLE    VII. 

THE  BATTLE  OF  OLUSTEE,  OR  OCEAN  POND, 177 

I.— Editorial  of  the  Savannah  Republican,  July,  1870,  on  the  Subject,  .     177 

II. — Letter  of  Mr.  Stephens  (referred  to)  on  the  same  Subject,         .        .  177 

« 

ARTICLE    VIII. 

THE  FORGED  SPEECH, •  180 

I.— Letter  of  Mr.  Stephens  on  this  Subject, 180 

ARTICLE    IX. 

REPLY  OF  MR.  STEPHENS  TO  MR.  ATTORNEY-GENERAL  AKERMAN'S  DENUNCIA 
TIONS  OF  THE  WORK, 188 

ARTICLE    X. 

I.— Reply  of  Mr.  Stephens  to  Criticism  of  the  Atlanta  (Ga.)  "New  Era,"    .     196 

H.— Rejoinder  of  the  "New  Era," '      ...        207 

III.— Mr.  Stephens'  Sur-rejoinder  to  the  "New  Era," 214 

APPENDIX. 

L — Speech  of  Hon.  Linton  Stephens,  in  Macon,  Georgia,  on  the  "  Recon 
struction  Measures,"  and  the  "Enforcement  Act"  of  1870,  deliv 
ered  23d  of  January,  1871,  227 

H. — Speech  of  Hon.  Linton  Stephens,  at  the  City  Hall  in  Augusta,  Ga.,  on 

the  night  of  the  18th  of  February,  1871, 243 

III. — Letter  of  Ex-Governor  Charles  J.  Jenkins  to  His  Excellency  James  M. 

Smith,  Present  Governor  of  Georgia, 253 

GENERAL  ANALYTICAL  INDEX,  ,    271 


THE  KEVIEWEKS  KEYIEWED. 


AETICLE  I. 

ME.  STEPHENS'  REVIEW  OF  DR.  A.   T.  ZLEDSOE'S  REVIEW  OF 
THE  "  WAR  BETWEEN  THE  STATES,"  ETC. 

LIBERTY  HALL,  ) 

CRAWFORDVILLE,  GEORGIA,  October  22,  1868.  \ 

Messrs.  Editors  of  the  Statesman,  Baltimore,  Maryland : 

GENTLEMEN  :— In  the  Leader  of  the  third  instant  (which 
journal  has  since  been  merged  into  yours),  there  is  an  article 
of  a  character  to  justify  some  notice  from  me ;  otherwise,  silence 
might  be  construed  into  assent.  The  subject  is  of  too  much 
importance,  not  to  me  personally,  but  to  the  public  interests 
involved  in  the  questions,  for  "me  to  allow  such  an  inference 
to  be  drawn. 

The  article  alluded  to  is  the  one  under  the  head  of  Book 
Notices.  In  this,  after  referring  to  The  Southern  Review  for 
October  of  this  year,  and  the  high  merits  of  that  Quarterly, 
etc.,  special  attention  is  called  to  the  paper  entitled  "Alex 
ander  H.  Stephens  on  the  War,"  and  it  then  goes  to  say : 

"  The  writer  accuses  Mr.  Stephens  of  book-making,  and  cites  the  great 
amount  of  irrelevant  matter  which  encumbers  the  volume.  He  shows  the 
inconsistency  of  complaining  of  the  want  of  space,  and  at  the  same  time 
crowding  his  pages  with  such  documents  as  the  Declaration  of  Indepen 
dence,  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  etc.,  and  with  almost  entire  Congressional  and  other  speeches. 
He  condemns  also  the  cold-bloodedness  with  which  he  charges  the  .his 
tory  is  written,  and  insists  that  the  true  historian  of  a  passionate  period 
must  have  passion  enough  to  enable  him  to  sympathize  with  the  fierce 


10  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

energies  he  records.  He  denies  that  the  protracted  struggle  through 
which  we  have  just  passed  arose  from  a  mere  conflict  of  political  ideas, 
and  shows  that  that  conflict  existed  from  the  foundation  of  the  govern 
ment.  The  Reviewer  insists,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  revolution  was  the 
product  of  a  'multitude  of  converging  causes,'  such  as  the  destruction 
of  the  balance  of  power,  sectional  legislation,  formation  of  a  geograph 
ical  faction,  the  disregard  of  the  checks  of  the  Constitution,  the  unfair 
treatment  of  the  slavery  question,  and  the  violent  tone  with  which  the 
question  of  Secession  was  discussed  at  the  North.  He  also  convicts  Mr. 
Stephens,  by  citation  from  his  own  speeches,  of  inconsistency  on  the  sub 
ject  of  Secession,  showing  that  the  North  did  not  misrepresent  him  when 
it  quoted  him  as  an  opponent  of  that  method  of  righting  the  wrongs  of 
the  South.  He  also  draws  a  very  clear  distinction  between  the  right  of 
Revolution  and  that  of  Secession,  as  entirely  distinct,  though  Mr.  Stephens 
has  confounded  them." 


From  this  it  appears,  that  the  author  of  this  article  in  the 
Leader  is  of  opinion  that  I,  in  the  first  volume  of  the  "  Con 
stitutional  View  of  the  Late  War,"  etc.,  had  confounded  the 
right  of  Secession  with  the  right  of  Eevolution,  while  the 
Reviewer  referred  to  has  drawn  a  very  clear  distinction  be 
tween  the  two ;  and,  moreover,  that  the  Reviewer,  besides 
several  other  rather  extraordinary  feats,  has  actually  convicted 
me  of  inconsistency  upon  the  subject  of  the  right  of  Secession, 
and  that,  too,  most  strangely,  by  slewing  that  the  North  did 
not  misrepresent  me  when  it  quoted  me  as  an  opponent  of  that 
method  of  righting  the  wrongs  of  tlie  South.  This  is  the  judg 
ment  he  has  given  to  the  world.  Whether  it  is  founded  barely 
upon  the  ex  parte  statement  of  the  Reviewer,  and  his  pre 
tended  extracts  from  the  book  and  speeches  referred  to,  or 
upon  a  full  investigation  and  examination,  by  himself,  of  the 
facts  and  merits  of  the  points  made  by  the  Reviewer,  does 
not  appear.  But,  be  that  as  it  may,  I  very  respectfully  appeal 
from  that  judgment,  and  ask  the  privilege,  through  the  columns 
of  the  Statesman,  the  successor  of  the  Leader,  to  present  these 
facts  and  points  to  your  readers ;  that  the  whole  case,  with  its 
merits,  on  both  sides,  may  be  properly  submitted  to  the  decision 
of  a  higher  tribunal. 

That  Dr.  Bledsoe,  the  Editor  of  The  Southern  Review 
(who,  I  take  it  for  granted,  is  the  writer),  did,  in  the  paper 


REVIEW  OF  DK.  BLEDSOE'S  REVIEW.  11 

referred  to,  put  forth  the  utmost  of  his  powers  in  an  endeavor 
to  convict  me  of  an  inconsistency  upon  the  subject  of  Seces 
sion,  is  quite  apparent  from  his  very  labored  effort.  Indeed, 
his  whole  review  of  the  book,  which  he  had  before  him,  is  mani 
festly  directed  much  more  against  the  author  than  against  the 
book  itself,  or  the  doctrines  and  principles  it  maintains.  At 
the  outset,  it  is  true,  there  is  something  about  it,  and  "the 
mysterious  Company  "  by  which  it  is  issued,  that  he  does  not 
like.  But,  as  he  advances,  it  appears  to  him  to  have  some  of 
the  merits  of  "a  real  book."  "The  one  living  element,  the 
one  vital  principle,  which  constitutes  it  a  real  book,"  says  he, 
"is  the  great  and  imperishable  truth,  that  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  was  Federal,  and  not  National,  in  its  ori 
gin."  "  This  great  truth  is,  we  think,  fully  and  unanswerably 
established  by  Mr.  Stephens."  (Page  280.)  In  the  same  mood, 
in  another  place,  he  says : — "  "We  hail  it,  then,  as  a  real  thing, 
as  a  veritable  luminary  in  the  political  heavens.  Not  as  a  star 
of  the  first  magnitude,  however,"  etc.  (Page  254.)  In  his 
varying  fancy,  this  "  veritable  luminary  "  soon  becomes  nothing 
but  "  a  comet "  with  "  an  immense  train,"  etc. 

Then,  suddenly,  as  if  under  the  baleful  influence  of  a  real 
comet  (which,  according  to  the  opinions  of  many,  less  imagi 
native  than  this  learned  Doctor  of  Laws,  is,  always,  a  portent 
of  evil,  scattering  disorders,  pestilence,  and  wars  among  man 
kind,  in  its  course),  he  seems  to  lose  his  self-possession,  and 
bursts  forth  into  a  furious  rage,  turning  upon  the  author,  assail 
ing  his  want  of  passion,  or  cold-Uoodedness,  and  his  various 
other  short-comings,  fancied  pretensions,  and  inconsistencies. 
In  this  line  of  criticism,  more  evidences  of  hot-lloodedness  and 
indiscretion,  which  usually  go  together  in  writing,  as  in  all 
things  else,  are  rarely  to  be  found  compressed  in  a  like  num 
ber  of  fifty-one  pages,  than  this  self-same  Review  contains. 
With  all  this  sort  of  personal  tirade,  of  course,  it  is  not  my 
purpose  now,  or  at  any  time,  to  trouble  you  or  annoy  your 
readers,  further  than  is  absolutely  necessary  to  my  own  vindi 
cation  against  his  perversions,  and  the  judgment  thus  rendered 
on  them.  My  object  In  this  notice  is  to  deal  mainly  with  the 
facts  of  the  case  involved  in  the  Leader's  presentation  of  the 


12  TPE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

merits  of  the  paper  in  question,  and  for  the  purpose,  mainly, 
of  correcting  some  of  the  numerous  misrepresentations,  with 
which  this  article  of  The  Southern  Review  abounds,  on  the 
points  embraced  in  that  presentation. 

In  the  prosecution  of  this  design,  allow  me,  then,  in  the 
first  place,  upon  the  subject  of  inconsistency  on  the  subject 
of  Secession,  to  say  that  Dr.  Bledsoe  does  not  attempt  to 
accomplish  his  object,  in  this  particular,  in  the  manner,  and 
on  the  point,  as  stated  in  the  Leader.  He  makes  no  citations 
from  my  speeches  to  show  that  I  was  not  misrepresented  at 
the  North,  when  I  was  quoted  as  being  an  opponent  of  that 
method  of  righting  the  wrongs  of  the  South.  This  was  more 
than  even  he  attempted.  Nothing  connected  with  my  public 
life  is  more  generally  known  North  as  well  as  South,  than 
that  I  did  oppose  that  method  of  redressing  what  I  considered 
great  wrongs  to  the  Southern  States  of  the  Union. 

His  object  was  to  convict  me  of  inconsistency  upon  the 
right  of  a  State  to  adopt  this  mode  of  redress,  if  she,  in  her 
sovereign  character,  chose  to  adopt  it.  The  argument  of  the 
book  maintains  this  right,  and  vindicates  the  justifiableness 
of  the  measure  as  matter  of  sovereign  right,  though  as  mat 
ter  of  public  policy  it  might  have  been  injudicious,  and  un 
wise,  as  I  held  it  to  be  at  the  time.  Many  things  may  be 
legally  and  morally  right  in  themselves,  which,  nevertheless, 
may  not  be  either  wise  or  expedient  in  public  as  well  as  in 
private  affairs.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  book  on  this  ques 
tion,  and  Dr.  Bledsoe  quotes  from  the  report  of  a  speech  made 
by  me,  14rth  November,  1860  (known  as  my  "Union  Speech"), 
to  show  that  I  did  not  then  believe  in  this  sovereign  right  of 
Secession ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  denied  it !  This  is  the  incon 
sistency  that  he  endeavored  to  show,  and  which  he  claims  that 
he  has  established.  He  maintains  that  I  denied  this  right  in 
that  speech.  I  maintain  that  I  did  not,  but  fully  recognized 
the  same  principles  in  it,  on  this  question,  which  are  set  forth 
in  the  book.  This  is  the  issue  between  us. 

To  enable  that  tribunal,  to  which  I  appeal,  more  clearly 
and  fully  to  understand  the  merits  of  both  sides,  it  is  proper 
that  the  principles  set  forth  in  the  "  Constitutional  View  of 


KEVIEW   OF  DK.  BLEDSOE'S  KEVIEW.  13 

the  Late  War  between  tlie  States"  etc.,  on  this  subject,  should 
first  be  presented.     These  are  as  follows : 

"  Now,  as  to  the  rigJitfulness  of  the  State  thus  resuming  her  sovereign 
powers.  In  doing  it  she  seceded  from  that  Union,  to  which,  in  the  lan 
guage  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  as  well  as  General  Washington,  she  had  acceded  as 
a  sovereign  State.  She  repealed  her  ordinance  by  which  she  ratified  and 
agreed  to  the  Constitution  and  became  a  party  to  the  Compact  under  it. 
She  declared  herself  no  longer  bound  by  that  Compact,  and  dissolved  her 
alliance  with  the  other  parties  to  it.  The  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  laws  passed  in  pursuance  of  it,  were  no  longer  the  supreme 
law  of  the  people  of  Georgia,  any  more  than  the  treaty  with  France  was 
the  supreme  law  of  both  countries  after  its  abrogation,  in  1798,  by  th« 
same  rightful  authority  which  had  made  it  in  the  beginning.  In  answer 
to  your  question,  whether  she  could  do  this  without  a  breach  of  her 
solemn  obligations,  under  the  Compact,  I  give  this  full  and  direct  answer: 
She  had  a  perfect  right  so  to  do,  subject  to  no  authority  but  the  great 
moral  law  which  governs  the  intercourse  between  Independent  Sovereign 
Powers,  Peoples,  or  Nation s.  Her  action  was  subject  to  the  authority  of 
that  law,  and  none  other.  It  is  the  inherent  right  of  Nations,  subject  to 
this  law  alone,  to  disregard  the  obligations  of  Compacts  of  all  sorts,  by 
declaring  themselves  no  longer  bound  in  any  way  by  them.  This,  by 
universal  consent,  may  be  rightfully  done  when  there  has  been  a  breach 
of  the  Compact  by  the  other  party  or  parties.  It  was  on  this  principle 
that  the  United  States  abrogated  their  treaty  with  France,  in  1798.  The 
justifiableness  of  the  act  depends,  in  every  instance,  upon  the  circum 
stances  of  the  case.  The  general  rule  is,  if  all  the  other  States — the 
parties  to  the  Confederation — faithfully  comply  with  their  obligations, 
under  the  Compact  of  Union,  no  State  would  be  morally  justified  in  with 
drawing  from  a  Union  so  formed,  unless  it  were  necessary  for  her  own 
preservation.  Self-preservation  is  the  first  law  of  nature,  with  States  or, 
Nations,  as  it  is  with  individuals. 

"  But  in  this  case  the  breach  of  plighted  faith  was  not  on  the  part  of  £ 
Georgia,  or  those  States  which  withdrew,  or  attempted  to  withdraw, 
from  the  Union.  Thirteen  of  their  Confederates  had  openly  and  avowedly 
disregarded  their  obligations  under  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  which 
covenanted  for  the  rendition  of  fugitives  from  service,  to  say  nothing  of 
the  acts  of  several  of  them,  in  a  like  open  and  palpable  breach  of  faith, 
in  the  matter  of  the  rendition  of  fugitives  from  justice.  These  are  facts 
about  which  there  can  be  no  dispute.  Then,  by  universal  law,  as  recog 
nized  by  all  Nations,  savage  as  well  as  civilized,  the  Compact,  thus  broken 
by  some  of  the  parties,  w^as  no  longer  binding  upon  the  others.  The 
breach  was  not  made  by  the  Seceding  States.  Under  the  circumstances, 
and  the  facts  of  this  case,  therefore,  the  legal  as  well  as  moral  right,  on 


14:  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

the  part  of  Georgia,  according  to  the  laws  of  Nations  and  nature,  to  de 
clare  herself  no  longer  bound  by  the  Compact,  and  to  -withdraw  from  the 
Union  under  it,  was  perfect  and  complete.  These  principles  are  too 
incontestably  established  to  be  questioned,  much  less  denied,  in  the  forum 
of  reason  and  justice." — (Constitutional  View,  etc.,  vol.  i.,  page  495.) 

Such  are  the  doctrines  and  principles  set  forth  in  the  book 
upon  the  subject  of  the  Right  of  Secession.  These,  Dr.  Bled- 
soe  asserts,  are  inconsistent  with  the  principles  and  doctrines 
held  by  me  in  the  speech  referred  to.  To  sustain  his  side  of 
this  issue,  he  quotes,  or  pretends  to  quote,  from  that  speech. 
After  producing  a  part  of  it,  he  says : 

"  Now  here,  without  the  least  reference  to  the  mode  of  Secession,  it  is 
broadly  and  plainly  asserted  that  *  Secession  would  be  a  violation  of  that 
sacred  instrument,  the  Constitution,  which  so  many  of  his  hearers  had 
sworn  to  support.'  If  this  does  not  deny  the  Constitutional  right  of 
Secession,  then  may  we  despair  of  ever  arriving  at  the  real  import  of  the 
plainest  possible  modes  of  expression." — (Page  275  of  Review.) 

In  reply  to  this  your  readers  may  be  surprised  to  be  in 
formed  that  no  such  expression,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Bledsoe,  is 
to  be  found  in  the  speech  to  which  he  refers,  from  the  begin 
ning  to  the  end  of  it.  It  is  a  distorted  fabrication.  It  is  but 
the  figment  of  his  own  disordered  imagination  :  the  creation 
of  that  fierce  passion  with  which  he  seems  to  think  critical 
reviews,  as  well  as  histories,  should  be  written.  The  speech 
from  which  he  pretends  to  quote,  as  is  well  known,  was  an 
earnest  remonstrance  before  the  Legislature  of  Georgia  against 
Secession,  for  any  of  the  grievances  then  complained  of.  All 
these  were  discussed  in  order.  Some  of  them  I  did  not  think 
sufficient  to  justify  the  exercise  of  this  right.  On  these  the 
Doctor  fully  admits  I  had  the  best  of  the  argument  (page  266 
of  Review).  Others  I  did  believe  to  be  sufficient,  as  will  be 
seen  ;  though  even  for  a  redress  of  them,  I  advised  the  adop 
tion  of  another,  and  which  I  thought  a  better,  line  of  policy. 
That  speech,  moreover,  it  may  be  here  stated  for  the  informa 
tion  of  those  who  have  not  seen  the  volume  in  which  it  is  pub 
lished,  and  from  which  the  Doctor  quotes,  was  entirely  extem 
porary.  It  stands  in  the  words  of  a  reporter,  with  only  a 
hurried  revision  by  me.  That  part  of  it,  as  it  thus  stands, 


EEVIEW  OF  DK.  BLEDSOE'S  EEVIEW.  15' 

including  what  was  reproduced  by  Him,  and  from  which  this 
expression  attributed  to  me  is  manufactured,  is  in  these  words  : 

"The  first  question  that  presents  itself  is:  Shall  the  people  of  the 
South  secede  from  the  Union  in  consequence  of  the  election  of  Mr.  Lin 
coln  to  the  Presidency  of  the  United  States  ?  My  countrymen,  I  tell  you 
frankly,  candidly,  and  earnestly,  that  I  do  not  think  that  they  ought.  In 
my  judgment,  the  election  of  no  man,  constitutionally  chosen  to  that 
high  office,  is  sufficient  cause  for  any  State  to  separate  from  the  Union. 
It  ought  to  stand  by  and  aid  still  in  maintaining  the  Constitution  of  the 
country.  To  make  a  point  of  resistance  to  the  Government,  to  withdraw 
from  it  because  a  man  has  been  constitutionally  elected,  puts  us  in  the 
wrong.  We  are  pledged  to  maintain  the  Constitution.  Many  of  us  have 
sworn  to  support  it.  Can  we,  therefore,  for  the  mere  election  of  a  man 
to  the  Presidency,  and  that,  too,  in  accordance  with  the  prescribed  forms 
of  the  Constitution,  make  a  point  of  resistance  to  the  Government  with 
out  becoming  the  breakers  of  that  sacred  instrument  ourselves,  by  with 
drawing  ourselves  from  it  ?  Would  we  not  be  in  the  wrong  ?  Whatever 
fate  is  to  befall  this  country,  let  it  never  be  laid  to  the  charge  of  the 
people  of  the  South,  and  especially  to  the  people  of  Georgia,  'that  we 
were  untrue  to  our  national  engagements." 

All  this  refers,  as  clearly  appears,  especially  and  exclusively 
to  the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  as  a  sufficient  cause  to  justify 
Secession.  The  opinion  was  given  that  his  election,  or  the 
bare  election  of  any  man,  constitutionally  chosen,  however 
dangerous  the  principles  he  might  entertain,  was  not,  in  my 
individual  judgment,  sufficient  cause  to  justify  it.  But  is  there 
any  thing  in  the  whole  extract  which  looks  any  thing  like  the 
Iroady  unqualified  denial  of  the  right  which  I)r.  Bledsoe  puts 
in  my  mouth  ?  If  there  be  not  the  least  reference  here  to  the 
mode  of  Secession,  is  there  not  a  much  more  pertinent  and 
special  reference  to  a  particular  cause  that  would  not  justify 
it  ?  Is  there  any  thing  here  like  a  denial  that  any  cause  would 
justify  Secession  or  the  withdrawal  of  a  State  from  the  Union  ? 
or  like  the  assertion  that  no  cause  would  justify  such  action  ? 
Is  not  the  inference  clearly  the  other  way  ?  That  some  other 
cause  or  causes  might  ? 

But  the  matter  is  not  left  to  inference  only.  It  is  put 
beyond  doubt  or  cavil,  as  I  maintain,  in  the  after  part  of  the 
same  speech,  which  Dr.  Bledsoe  had  before  him.  As  the 


16  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

greater  part  of  his,  as  well  as  your  readers,  perhaps,  have  never 
seen  the  whole  of  the  speech,  I  therefore  submit  for  their  con 
sideration,  on  the  points  at  issue  between  us,  the  following 
additional  extracts : 

"  But  it  is  said  that  Mr.  Lincoln's  policy  and  principles  are  against  the 
Constitution,  and  that,  if  he  carries  them  out,  it  will  be  destructive  of 
our  rights !  Let  us  not  anticipate  a  threatened  evil !  If  he  violates  the 
Constitution,  then  will  come  our  time  to  act." 

Again,  after  going  through  with  all  the  other  grievances 
complained  of,  I  proceeded  as  follows  (the  parts  are  now  itali 
cized  for  special  notice) : 

"  Now,  upon  another  point,  and  that  the  most  difficult,  and  deserv 
ing  your  most  serious  consideration,  I  will  speak !  That  is,  the  course 
which  this  State  should  pursue  toward  these  Northern  States  which,  by 
their  legislative  acts,  have  attempted  to  nullify  the  fugitive  slave  law.  .  . . 
Northern  States,  on  entering  into  the  Federal  Compact,  pledged  themselves 
to  surrender  such  fugitives ;  and  it  is  in  disregard  of  their  constitutional 
obligations  that  they  have  passed  laws  which  even  tend  to  hinder  or  in 
hibit  the  fulfilment  of  that  obligation.  They  have  violated  their  plighted 
faith !  What  ought  we  to  do  in  view  of  this  ?  That  is  the  question. 
What  is  to  be  done  ?  By  the  law  of  Nations  you  would  have  a  right  to 
demand  the  carrying  out  of  this  article  of  agreement,  and  I  do  not  see 
that  it  should  le  otherwise  with  respect  to  the  States  of  this  Union.  .  .  .  The 
States  of  this  Union  stand  upon  the  same  footing "  [toward  each  other,  of 
course]  "  with  foreign  nations  in  this  respect.  .  .  .  Suppose  it  were  Great 
Britain  that  had  violated  some  compact  of  agreement  with  the  General 
Government — what  would  be  first  done  ?  In  that  case  our  Minister  would 
be  directed,  in  the  first  instance,  to  bring  the  matter  to  the  attention  of 
that  Government,  or  a  Commissioner  be  sent  to  that  country  to  open 
negotiations  with  her,  ask  for  redress,  and  it  would  only  be  after  argument 
and  reason  had  been  exhausted  in  vain  that  we  would  take  the  last  resort 
of  Nations.  That  would  be  the  course  toward  a  Foreign  Government,  and 
toward  a  member  of  this  Confederacy  I  would  recommend  the  same  course. 
Let  us  not,  therefore,  act  hastily  or  ill-temperedly  in  this  matter.  Let 
your  Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Republic  make  out  a  bill  of  griev 
ances;  let  it  be  sent  by  the  Governor  to  those  faithless  States;  and  if 
reason  and  argument  shall  be  tried  in  vain — if  all  shall  fail  to  induce 
them  to  return  to  their  constitutional  obligations — I  would  fie  for  retalia 
tory  measures,  such  as  the  Governor  has  suggested  to  you.  This  mode  of 
resistance  in  the  Union  is  in  our  power.  It  might  be  effectual,  and  if  [not], 
in  the  last  resort  we  would  be  justified  in  the  eyes  of  Nations,  not  only 


REVIEW  OF  DR.  BLEDSOE'S  REVIEW.        17 

in  separating  from  them,  but  by  using  force.  .  .  .  At  least,  let  these  offend 
ing  and  derelict  States  know  what  your  grievances  are,  and  if  they  refuse, 
as  I  said ,  to  give  us  our  rights  under  the  Constitution,  I  should  be  willing, 
as  a  last  resort,  to  sever  the  ties  of  our  Union  with  them.  My  own  opinion 
is,  that  if  this  course  be  pursued,  and  they  are  informed  of  the  conse 
quences  of  refusal,  these  States  will  recede,  will  repeal  their  nullifying 
acts ;  but  if  they  should  not,  then  let  the  consequences  be  with  them,  and 
the  responsibility  of  the  consequences  rest  upon  them.  .  .  .  Now,  then, 
my  recommendation  to  you  would  be  this :  In  view  of  all  these  questions 
of  difficulty,  let  a  Convention  of  the  people  of  Georgia  be  called,  to  which 
they  may  be  all  referred.  Let  the  sovereignty  of  the  people  speak.  Some 
think  that  the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln  is  cause  sufficient  to  dissolve  the 
Union.  Some  think  those  other  grievances  arc  sufficient  to  dissolve  the 
same,  and  that  the  Legislature  has  the  power  thus  to  act.  I  have  no 
hesitancy  in  saying  that  the  Legislature  is  not  the  proper  hody  to  sever . 
our  Federal  relations,  if  that  necessity  should  arise.  .  .  .  Sovereignty  is 
not  in  the  Legislature  !  We,  the  people,  are  Sovereign !  I  a  in  one  of 
them,  and  have  a  right  to  be  heard,  and  so  has  every  other  citizen  of 
the  State.  You  legislators — I  speak  it  respectfully — are  but  our  ser 
vants  !  You  are  the  servants  of  the  people,  and  not  their  masters ! 
Power  resides  with  the  people  in  this  country.  .  .  .  This  principle  of 
popular  sovereignty,  however  much  derided  lately,  is  the  foundation  of 
our  Institutions.  Constitutions  are  but  the  channels  through  which  the 
popular  will  may  be  expressed.  Our  Constitution  came  from  the  people. 
They  made  it,  and  they  alone  can  rightfully  unmake  it.  ...  I  am  for  pre 
senting  the  question  fairly  to  the  people,  by  calling  together  an  untram 
melled  Convention,  and  presenting  all  the  questions  to  them — whether 
they  will  go  out  of  the  Union,  or  what  cause  of  resistance  in  the  Union 
they  may  think  best — and  then  let  the  Legislature  act,  when  the  people 
in  their  majesty  are  heard.  .  .  .  Now,  when  this  Convention  assembles,  if 
it  shall  be  called,  as  I  hope  it  may,  I  would  say,  in  my  judgment,  with 
out  dictation,  for  I  am  conferring  with  you  freely  and  frankly,  and  it  is 
thus  that  I  give  my^views — it  should  take  into  consideration  all  those 
questions  which  distract  the  public  mind  ;  should  view  all  the  grounds  of 
Secession,  etc.  .  .  .  Another  thing  I  would  have  that  Convention  to  do : 
Reaffirm  the  Georgia  platform  with  an  additional  plank  in  it.  Let  that 
plank  be  the  fulfilment  of  these  constitutional  obligations  on  the  part  of 
those  States — their  repeal  of  these  obnoxious  laws  as  the  condition  of  our 
remaining  in  the  Union.  .  .  .  Should  Georgia  determine  to  go  out  of  the 
Union,  I  speak  for  one,  though  my  views  might  not  agree  with  them, 
whatever  the  result  may  be,  I  shall  bow  to  the  will  of  her  people." 

Is  there  any  thing  in  this  speech,  as  appears  from  any  of 
these  extracts,  taken  singly  or  collectively,  inconsistent  with 
2 


18  THE  EE VIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

the  doctrines  and  principles  set  forth  in  the  book  ?  Is  not  the 
great  Sovereign  Right  of  Secession  as  clearly  admitted  and 
recognized  in  the  speech,  under  the  same  principles  of  the 
laws  of  Nations,  as  it  is  more  elaborately  argued  and  set  forth 
in  the  book  ?  It  is  not  admitted  in  the  one,  nor  set  forth  in 
the  other,  either  as  a  Constitutional  right  or  a  Revolutionary 
right.  There  is  no  such  nonsense  in  the  speech,  or  in  the 
book.  It  has  ever  been  held  by  me,  on  all  occasions,  as  a  Sov 
ereign  Right.  All  the  confusion  on  this  subject  is  with  the 
Doctor  himself.  It  was  not  by  virtue  of  the  Constitution  that 
this  right  was  to  be  exercise^,  but  by  virtue  of  that  Sovereignty 
of  the  State  by  which  the  Constitutional  Compact  was  entered 
into  by  her.  The  doctrine  of  the  book  on  this  point  is  as 
follows : 

"  This  right  of  a  State  to  consider  herself  no  longer  bound  by  a  Com 
pact  which,  in  her  judgment,  has  been  broken  by  her  Confederates,  and 
to  secede  from  a  Union,  formed  as  ours  was,  has  nothing  about  it  either 
new  or  novel.  It  is  incident  to  all  Federal  Republics.  It  is  not  derived 
from  the  Compact  itself.  It  does  not  spring  from  it  at  ail.  It  is  derived 
from  the  same  source  that  the  right  is  derived  to  abrogate  a  treaty  by 
either  or  any  of  the  parties  to  it.  That  is  seldom  set  forth  in  the  treaty 
itself,  and  yet  it  exists,  whether  it  be  set  forth  or  not.  So  in  any  Federal 
Compact  whatever,  the  parties  may  or  may  not  expressly  provide  for 
breaches  of  it.  But  where  no  such  provision  is  made  the  right  exists  by 
the  same  laws  of  Nations  which  govern  in  all  matters  of  treaties  or  con 
ventions  between  Sovereigns." — (Vol.  i.,  Con.  View,  p.  500.) 

These  are  the  principles  in  which  I  was  educated.  From 
the  time  that  I  entered  public  life,  and  even  before,  I  held  the 
same,  as  the  records  can  abundantly  establish.  However  pro 
foundly  ignorant  the  Doctor  confesses  himself  to  have  been 
upon  the  subject  when  he  was  "an  old  line  Whig"  (page  270, 
S.  R.\  he  should  not  take  it  for  granted  that  all  others  were 
as  uninformed  as  himself.  He  is,  according  to  his  own  ac 
knowledgment,  even  now  but  a  neophyte.  This  may  account 
for  his  seeing,  as  yet,  the  great  truth  so  dimly. 

He  seems  really  to.  think,  because  I  did  not  say  much  about 
this  right  of  Secession  until  I  reached  the  latter  part  of  the 
volume,  that  I  did  not  know  what 'I  was  about,  and  that  what 


REVIEW  OF  DR.  BLEDSOE'S  REVIEW.  19 

is  there  said  was  but  an  "after-thought."  One  would  suppose 
that  he  had  filled  the  chair  of  Mathematics  in  the  University 
of  Virginia  long  enough  to  have  learned,  that  conclusions  are 
logical  results  reached  after  a  regular  process  of  reasoning,  and 
that  they  are  seldom  stated,  by  those  who  are  masters  of  the 
problem  in  hand,  until  they  are  reached.  This  is  the  regular 
order  of  demonstration.  This  was  the  order  pursued  by  me 
in  establishing  what,  notwithstanding  all  his  carping,  this  ex- 
professor  himself  admits  to  be  an  "  imperishable  truth !  " 

The  real  gravamen,  however,  of  the  Doctor,  may  perhaps 
be,  that  I  did  not  follow  him  in  presenting  the  "  numerous 
and  converging  causes  "  or  grounds  of  Secession  which  he  had 
set  forth  in  the  Southern  Quarterly  (pages  264—65,  S.  Review), 
such  as  the  destruction  of  the  balance  of  power,  sectional  legis 
lation,  formation  of  a  geographical  faction,  the  disregard  of  the 
checks  of  the  Constitution,  the  unfair  treatment  of  the  slavery 
question,  and  the  violent  tone  with  which  the  question  of  Se 
cession  was  discussed  at  the  North — as  he  sets  them  forth. 
Upon  a  more  careful  and  dispassionate  reading  of  the  "  Consti 
tutional  Yiew  of  the  War  between  the  States,"  •  however,  he 
may  find  several  of  these  topics  very  fully  treated  of  in  its 
pages.  If  some  of  them  are  entirely  omitted,  such  as  his  lead 
ing  one,  to  wit :  "  Firstly,  the  destruction  of  the  balance  of 
power  which  was  originally  established  between  the  North  and 
the  South,  and  which  was  deemed  by  the  authors  of  the  Con 
stitution  to  be  essential  to  the  freedom,  safety,  and  happiness, 
of  those  sections  of  the  Union"  (page  264  of  Review),  it  may 
be  some  relief  to  him  to  be  informed  that  this  was  omitted 
simply  because  it  has  no  fact  in  history  to  rest  upon.  I  was 
writing  for  the  informed  as  well  as  the  uninformed — for  the 
present  as  well  as  the  future — and  had  some  respect  for  my  own 
character,  as  well  as  a  proper  devotion  to  the  truth.  There  was 
no  balance  of  power  established  between  the  North  and  the 
South,  as  sections,  in  the  Constitution.  The  only  balance  of 
power  established  in  that  Compact  in  this  respect,  which  was 
deemed  by  the  authors  of  it  to  be  essential  to  the  freedom, 
safety,  and  happiness,  of  each  and  all  the  States,  was  the 
equality  of  the  States,  the  reserved  Sovereignty  of  the  States, 


20  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

and  the  equal  representation  of  their  sovereignty  in  the  Con 
gress  of  States.  Had  I  made  such  a  statement  as  the  Doctor 
has  ventured  to  announce,  I  certainly  should  not  have  appended 
a  copy  of  the  Constitution  to  the  work.  For  if  I  had,  it  would 
have  been  a  complete  refutation  of  the  text.  "No  wonder  he 
complains  so  lustily  at  these  everlasting  proofs,  by  which  the 
positions  in  the  book  are  fortified  in  the  accompanying  appen 
dix.  So  with  the  rest  of  his  omitted  grounds.  "  The  violent 
tone  with  which  the  question  of  Secession  was  discussed  at  the 
North,"  I  did  not  think  a  sufficient  cause  for  Secession,  and 
therefore  omitted  it,  though  the  Doctor  may  have  announced  it 
as  a  proper  one  some  time  before.  So  of  the  bare  "  formation 
of  a  geographical  faction." 

But  that  the  "unfair  treatment  of  the  slavery  question," 
when  it  amounted  to  a  breach  of  the  Federal  Compact,  on  the 
part  of  several  of  the  Northern  States,  did  fully  justify  Seces 
sion,  is  certainly  very  fully  discussed,  if  not  clearly  established, 
in  the  book.  Were  it  anybody  else  but  Dr.  Bledsoe  who  makes 
this  statement,  it  would  be  a  matter  of  wonder  that  this  should 
be  placed  among  the  omitted  grounds. 

But  still,  in  his  opinion,  I  did  not  "  grapple "  sufficiently 
with  the  subject;  did  not  sufficiently  comprehend  its  height, 
length,  depth,  and  breadth ;  did  not  show  causes  enough ! 
The  one  great  cause,  the  violation  6f  the  fundamental  princi 
ple  of  the  Federal  system,  as  set  forth  in  the  book,  wTas  not 
sufficient  for  such  stupendous  results !  Indeed,  he  says,  that 
Thucydides,  two  thousand  years  ago,  in  assigning  the  causes 
for  the  Peloponnesian  war,  came  nearer  the  mark,  in  assigning 
the  causes  of  our  war,  than  I  have  come.  This  author  he 
allows  to  be  a  "  truly  philosophic  historian,"  and  he  pretends 
to  quote  what  he  said  were  the  causes  of  the  great  Grecian 
Twenty-seven  Years'  "War;  but  he  is  as  unfortunate  in  his 
quotation  from  Thucydides  as  he  is  from  me.  Read  what  he 


"  Mr.  Stephens  attempts  to  describe  what  has  passed  before  his  eyes, 
and  to  assign  its  '  real  causes.'  Yet,  by  a  truly  '  philosophic  historian ' 
was  the  thing  infinitely  better  done  more  than  two  thousand  years  before 
the  events  of  the  late  war  happened.  We  allude,  of  course,  to  Thucydides. 


REVIEW  OF  DR.   BLEDSOE'S  REVIEW.  21 

who,  in  his  history  of  the  Peloponnesian  War,  says  :  '  And  the  cause  of 
all  these  things  was  power  pursued  for  the  gratification  of  avarice,  and 
the  consequent  violence  of  parties  when  once  engaged  in  the  contest.' 
Thus,  in  his  account  of  the  memorable  war  in  which  '  Greek  met  Greek,' 
is  the  cause  of  the  late  war  depicted,  with  an  insight  far  more  profound, 
and  an  accuracy  far  more  perfect,  than  it  is  in  the  history  of  Mr.  Ste 
phens."—  (Page  283,  Review.) 


,  I  was  not  writing  a  History  of  our  late  war.  I  was 
only  giving  a  Constitutional  Yiew  of  its  causes,  character,  con 
duct,  and  results. 

But  Thucydides  assigned  no  such  cause  as  that  stated  for 
the  outbreak  of  the  Peloponnesian  "War,  of  which  he  is  the 
great  historian.  The  one  great  cause  which  he  assigned  for 
that  war,  and  from  which  all  its  evils,  sufferings,  and*demoral- 
ization  sprung,  was  "  the  breaking  the  thirty-years'  truce  after 
the  taking  of  Euboea."  —  (See  Thucydides,  Book  1,  sec.  23.) 

In  what  the  Doctor  quotes,  the  historian  is  speaking  only  of 
the  evils  of  dissensions  and  factions,  which  first  arose  in  Cor- 
cyra,  and  afterward  spread  through  all  Greece  during  the  con 
tinuance  of  the  war.  His  exact  language  on  the  subject  of 
these  dissensions,  and  not  the  causes  of  the  war  (which  is,  as 
usual  with  the  Doctor,  misquoted),  is  as  follows  : 

"  Now,  the  cause  of  all  these  things  was  power  pursued  for  the  gratifi 
cation  of  covetousness  and  ambition  [italics  mine],  and  the  consequent  vio 
lence  of  parties  when  once  engaged  in  contention.  For  the  leaders  in  the 
cities,  having  a  specious  profession  on  each  side,  putting  forward,  respec 
tively,  the  political  equality  of  the  people,  or  a  moderate  aristocracy, 
while  in  word  they  served  the  common  interests  —  in  truth,  they  made 
them  their  prizes."—  (Thucydides,  Book  3,  sec.  82.) 

This  reference  to  Thucydides  was  very  unfortunate  for  the 
Doctor,  in  several  respects..  He  not  only  misquotes  him,  and 
then  misapplies  what  he  attempts  to  quote,  but  directs  atten 
tion  to  the  highest  authority  against  himself,  on  the  very  points 
he  was  making  on  me,  in  this  violent  outburst  of  temper.  He 
is  answered  by  his  own  authority.  Thucydides  assigned  but 
one  cause  for  the  Great  War  between  the  Grecian  States.  This 
was  the  breach  of  the  thirty-years'  truce.  "  As  for  the  reason 
why  they  broke  it  "  he  gives  the  grounds  of  complaints  at  large, 


22  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

on  both  sides,  and  with  such  dispassionate  impartiality — f  cold- 
NoodednessJ  if  you  please — that  no  one,  unless  otherwise  in 
formed,  could  come  to  any  correct  opinion  as  to  his  own 
position  in  the  contest,  or  on  which  side  he  stood,  though  he  was 
actually  an  active  and  zealous  participant  in  the  scenes  he 
describes. 

If  he,  then,  assigned  but  one  leading  cause  for  this  great 
war,  which  was  the  true  one,  and  could  treat  of  it,  after  taking 
the  part  he  did  in  it,  with  such  cold-bloodedness  as  he  did — 
writing  it,  as  he  said,  "  not  as  a  prize-task  to  listen  to  at  the 
present  moment,"  but  as  "  a  possession  forever  "  (as  it  is  likely 
to  prove  to  be  with  the  test  of  two  thousand  years) — does  not 
the  Doctor  himself,  by  this  reference,  bring  forward  an  illus 
trious  e^fcmple  in  refutation  of  his  positions,  in  the  identical 
particulars  he  is  so  furious  upon  against  me  in  this  case  ? 

From  this  "  truly  philosophic  historian "  the  Doctor  might 
learn  some  other  useful  lessons  upon  the  subject  of  passion,, 
even  in  war!  For  instance,  in  bookl,  section  122,  he  would 
see  it  stated  that  "  war,  least  of  all  things,  proceeds  on  definite 
principles,  but  adopts  most  of  its  contrivances  from  itself,  to 
suit  the  occasion ;  in  the  course  of  which  he  that  deals  with  it 
with  good  temper  is  more  secure ;  while  he  that  engages  in  it 
with  passion  makes  the  greater  failure."  Had  the  Doctor,  and 
those  associated  with  him  in  the  War  Department  at  Rich 
mond,  during  our  late  struggle,  been  governed  more  by  calm 
good  sense,  and  less  by  mere  fierce  and  fiery  passion  and  per 
sonal  prejudices  (such  as  he  still  exhibits),  our  present  condi 
tion  might  have  been  infinitely  better  than  it  is ! 

But  let  -us  proceed  to  look  at  some  other  of  his  points  of 
inconsistency.  First,  at  the  complaint  of  the  want  of  space, 
while  the  book  is  loaded  with  so  much  surplus  matter !  Out 
of  the  654  pages  of  the  volume,  one  hundred  and  four  of  them 
(he  has  counted  them)  are  taken  up,  he  says,  with  cumbrous 
documents,  such  as  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States,  the  Kentucky  Resolutions  of  1798, 
the  Virginia  Resolutions  of  '98-'99,  and  Mr.  Madison's  report 
thereon — documents  which,  he  says,  are  in  every  gentleman's 
library.  He  has  them  in  at  least  a  dozen  volumes,  etc.  (p.  251, 


REVIEW  OF  DR.   BLEDSOE'S  REVIEW.  23 

Review).  Now,  by  far  the  longest  of  these  documents  is  Mr. 
Madison's  Report  of  1799  on  the  Virginia  Resolutions  of  1798. 
If  the  Doctor  possesses  this  in  even  a  half  dozen  other  volumes, 
or  even  the  half  of  that,  he  is  much  luckier  than  I  am ;  and  I 
believe  I  have  quite  as  large  a  miscellaneous  library  as  most 
country  gentlemen.  So  far  from  its  being  on  every  book-shelf 
in  America,  I  will  venture  the  opinion  against  his  that  it  can 
not  be  found  on  one  in  a  hundred  thousand  of  the  book-shelves 
in  America.  I  never  saw  but  three  copies  of  this  Report  be 
fore  its  republication  in  this  volume.  One  is  an  old  pamphlet 
copy  in  my  possession,  one  is  in  the  supplement  to  the  33d 
volume  of  Niles'  Register,  and  the  other  in  the  4th  volume  of 
Elliot's  Debates.  If  the  Doctor  is  fortunate  enough  to  possess 
these  two  very  rare  works,  he  has  two  copies,  among  the  nu 
merous  volumes  on  his  shelves,  but  I  doubt  if  one  in  a  thousand 
of  his  readers  ever  saw  a  copy  of  it,  or  knew  where  to  obtain 
it.  I  veiy  much  question  if  he  himself  ever  saw  a  copy  of  it 
before  in  his  life,  as  his  article  has  strong  internal  evidence  that 
he  never  had  read  it  up  to  the  time  his  article  was  written. 
In  1861,  while  he  was  bogging  about  in  search  of  knowledge 
upon  the  nature  of  the  Government,  "  when  the  tremendous 
shock"  of  the  warring  elements  which  underlay  the  foundation 
of  its  whole  superstructure  came  so  suddenly  and  alarmingly 
upon  him,  if  he  had  blundered  upon  Mies'  Register,  or  some 
kind  friend  had  been  able  to  turn  him  to  a  copy  of  Elliot,  and 
he  had  then  read  and  studied  this  report,  he  might  have  found 
that  light  which  he  so  eagerly  sought  for,  but  failed  to  obtain, 
in  the  speech  of  Mr.  Benjamin !  (p.  269,  Review).  Perhaps, 
if  he  will  yet  read  it,  he  will  see  its  great  relevancy  and  essen 
tial  pertinency  to  the  questions  discussed  in  the  volume  he  had 
under  review,  as  well  as  the  like  relevancy  of  the  speeches  of 
Holcombe  and  Toombs.  Upon  a  more  careful  reading  he  may 
also  see  the  pertinency  and  great  relevancy  of  the  reproduction 
of  the  time-honored  Declaration  of  Independence,  with  quite 
enough  "scraps  of  brains"  (page  251,  Review)  in  the  Text  to 
show  this  relevancy.  Upon  examining  this  copy  thus  repro 
duced — taken  from  "the  bowels  of  Elliot's  Debates" — he  may 
see  that  its  differs,  in  its  Title,  very  essentially  from  the  other 


24:  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

numerous  copies  of  the  same  Document  with  which  his  shelves 
may  be  burdened.  He  will  see,  if  he  will  look,  that  the  Title, 
when  acted  upon  by  the  Congress,  was  made  to  conform  to  their 
action  upon  it  as  a  Congress  of  States.  At  least  it  so  appears 
in  Elliot.  There  it  stands  thus :  "  In  Congress,  July  4,  1776. 
The  Unanimous  Declaration  of  the  Thirteen  United  States  of 
America."  How  it  stands  on  the  Journal  I  do  not  know,  as  I 
have  no  copy  of  that ;  but  as  it  stands  in  Elliot  it  was  put  forth 
as  the  Declaration,  not  of  a  collective  body  of  men,  but  the 
Declaration  of  States !  It  was  no  Declaration  of  National 
Independence,  or  the  Independence  of  one  people  as  a  Nation, 
but  the  Independence  of  Separate  States !  The  use  made  of  it 
in  the  argument,  and  particularly  the  use  made  of  this  striking 
difference  between  the  Title  as  it  there  stands,  and  the  Title 
of  copies  usually  met  with,  rendered  it  altogether  proper  and 
essential  to  the  force  of  the  argument,  that  the  proof  should 
accompany  it.  But  apart  from  all  this,  how  many  of  the  thou 
sands  of  readers  for  whom  the  book  was  intended,  ever  saw  the 
Declaration  at  all,  or  the  Articles  of  the  Confederation  ?  And 
who  could  properly  appreciate  or  estimate  the  argument  in 
connection  with  either  without  a  copy  before  him  ? 

How,  again,  does  the  book  compare,  in  this  respect,  with 
others  on  like  or  kindred  subjects,  by  authors  of  character, 
repute,  and  distinction  ? 

Dr.  Francis  Lieber's  celebrated  volume  on  "  Civil  Liberty 
and  Self-Government "  consists  of  614  pages  without  counting 
the  index  ;  of  these  one  hundred  and  fifty-one  consist  of  nothing 
but  an  appendix  of  documentary  matter,  such  as  Magna 
Charta,  the  Petition  of  Eight,  the  Act  of  Parliament  against 
Imprisonment  for  Debt,  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act,  and,  besides 
various  other  papers  of  value  referred  to  in  the  text,  this  very 
same  Declaration  of  the  Independence  of  these  States,  lut  not 
with  the  title  as  it  stands  in  Elliot !  This  work  was  published  by 
J.  B.  Lippincott  &  Co.,  of  Philadelphia.  Was  this  an  exhibition 
of  "  the  vice  of  book-making,"  either  by  this  noted  author  or  his 
highly  respectable  publishers  ?  "Wherein  is  the  National  Pub 
lishing  Company  less  so  than  the  Lippincotts  ? 

Is  there  a  single  paper  in  this  most  valuable  appendix  of  Dr. 


REVIEW  OF  DR.   BLEDSOE'S  REVIEW.  25 

Lieber  which  a  careful  reader  would  not  wish  to  have  before 
him  in  perusing  the  text,  even  if  he  had  the  same  paper  in  a 
dozen  other  volumes  ? 

Lord  Mahon  (since  Earl  of  Stanhope)  published,  not  many 
years  ago,  an  exceedingly  interesting  history  of  England,  from 
the  "  Peace  of  Utrecht  to  the  Peace  of  Paris,"  in  2  volumes. 
To  the  first  volume,  consisting  of  567  pages,  he  has  an  appendix 
of  79  pages,  very  little  short  of  the  ratio  so  querulously  com 
plained  of  by  Dr.  Bledsoe,  in  the  book  he  was  reviewing.  Was 
Lord  Mahon  guilty  of  "  the  vice  of  book-making  ? "  or  of  swell 
ing  out  his  volumes  for  money,  with  the  hope  of  effecting  sales 
by  a  great  reputation  ?  Hume,  a  standard  historian,  to  his  first 
volume  of  the  History  of  England,  consisting  of  483  pages,  has 
appendices  Nos.  1  and  2,  besides  notes  amounting  to  70  pages. 
Here  again  the  ratio  is  very  little  short  of  that  so  much  com 
plained  of  by  Dr.  Bledsoe.  Napoleon,  the  present  Emperor 
of  France,  has  lately  published  a  life  of  Julius  Csesar,  in  2 
volumes.  The  first  is  out  of  place  in  my  library ;  but  to  the 
second  I  see  an  appendix  of  65  pages  out  of  659.  Is  he  guilty 
of  the  "  vice  of  book-making,"  or  writing  for  means  wherewith 
to  live  ? 

But  the  Doctor  complains  that  so  many  extracts  of  speeches 
are  interspersed  through  the  text  of  the  book,  and  other  docu 
mentary  evidence.  This  he  calls  the  work  of  "  scissors "  "  in 
book-making  "  (page  250  of  Review).  How  would  his  "  truly 
philosophic  historian,"  Thucydides,  pass  the  scrutiny  of  such 
criticism  \  How  much  of  his  work  which  was  to  be  a  "  posses 
sion  forever  "  is  made  up  entirely  of  speeches  ?  If  the  Doctor 
had  criticised  Thucydides  by  tape,  as  he  did  the  Constitutional 
Yiew,  he  might  have  found,  perhaps,  quite  as  large  a  portion  of 
his  volume  taken  up  in  this  way  as  in  the  one  before  him. 
"Were  these  speeches  of  Thucydides'  own  making,  or  were  they 
correct  reports  of  those  that  were  really  made  by  the  persons  to 
whom  they  are  attributed?  If  the  former,  then  his  work  is 
not  history,  but  fiction.  We  have  his  word,  however,  and 
authority  for  it,  that  all  of  them  which  he  heard  are  reported  as 
accurately,  in  substance,  as  possible ;  and  those  that  he  did  not 
hear  are  as  accurate  as  he  could  make  them,  from  reports  through 


26  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

the  most  authentic  sources  he  could  find  (Thucy elides.  Book  1, 
sec.  22).  His  object,  as  a  true  historian,  was  to  have  them  as 
accurate  in  substance  as  they  could  be  made.  On  this  point, 
in  this  country,  there  is  not  so  much  difficulty.  Most  of  the 
speeches  introduced  in  the  "  Constitutional  View"  etc.,  are, 
moreover,  of  much  higher  authority  than  any  bare  ex  tempore 
addresses,  however  accurately  reported.  They  are  the  carefully 
prepared  arguments  of  the  principal  actors  in  the  passing  scenes ; 
and,  in  giving  an  accurate  and  truthful  history  of  the  progress 
of  ideas,  and  the  development,  as  well  as  the  workings  of  the 
opposing  principles  of  our  system  of  government,  they  are  worth 
more  than  all  the  speculations  and  word-paintings  on  the  sub 
ject  that  could  be  produced  by  the  most  accomplished  masters 
of  rhetoric.  They  daguerreotype  a  life-picture,  whether  with 
agreeable  or  hideous  features,  of  the  great  movement,  in  each 
varying  phase  of  its  onward  progress !  To  collect,  select,  and 
arrange  such  matters  for  such  a  picture  is  not  "  the  work  of 
scissors  "  merely !  It  requires  toil  and  labor,  as  well  as  "  brains !" 
ISTot  the  irksome  toil  for  "  daily  bread,"  either  ;  much  less  for 
"  filthy  lucre  ; "  but  that  unwearying  labor  which  is  prompted 
and  sustained  by  the  soul-inspiring  object  of  exposing  error  and 
defending  truth !  This  is  the  kind  of  labor  I  am  now  perform 
ing,  and  even  in  this  I  have  found  it  necessary  to  make  frequent 
use  of  "  scissors."  There  is  another  instrument  I  am  making 
considerable  use  of  also,  and  that  is  a  pen.  For  my  purposes 
these  are  both  essentially  necessary;  but  it  requires  "  brains" 
to  direct  either,  as  well  as  both,  for  the  accomplishment  of  the 
end  desired. 

So  it  is  in  all  the  business  of  life,  as  well  as  in  all  the  works 
of  art.  It  is  eminently  so  in  all  historical  productions.  In 
these,  he  who  undertakes  to  speak,  to  write,  to  paint,  or  to 
sculpture,  must  take  the  materials  as  he  finds  them.  He  cannot 
create  them  or  change  their  substance,  and  in  dealing  with  them 
he  must  use  instruments  at  his  command.  To  dig  down  into 
the  annals  of  the  past ;  to  quarry  out  the  materials  of  other 
epochs,  where  they  lie  buried  in  remote  and  distant  strata  ;  to 
put  them  in  proper  shape ;  to  bring  them  together ;  to  adjust 
them  and  to  place  them  in  proper  position,  so  as  to  erect  out  of 


REVIEW  OF  DR.  BLEDSOE'S  REVIEW.  27 

them,' with  due  symmetry  and  proper  proportions,  an  enduring 
monument  of  facts — of  indestructible  truths — which,  in  their 
artistic  presentation,  shall  afford  to  the  world,  for  the  present 
and  the  future,  a  subject  of  study  both  agreeable  and  instructive, 
necessarily  requires  tools  or  implements  of  some  sort  and  of 
various  sorts.  These  it  is  the  function  of  "  brains  "  to  direct ; 
and  when  the  attempt  to  make  such  a  presentation  is  success 
ful,  be  it  on  stone,  or  canvas,  or  on  paper,  the  consummation  of 
the  whole  is  the  work  of  "  brains,"  of  genius — it  is  a  "  veritable 
creation ! "  In  "  making  a  book  " — accomplishing  this  object — 
therefore,  "  scissors  "  may  be  as  necessary  and  as  useful  as  in 
bare  "  book-making." 

Whether  the  "  Constitutional  View  of  the  Late  War  be 
tween  the  States"  etc.,  is  an  instance  of  the  one  or  the  other, 
is  not  for  me  to  say :  nor  do  I  mean  hereby  to  express  or  inti 
mate  any 'opinion,  one  way  or  the  other,  upon  that  point ;  but 
I  do  mean  to  reaffirm  what  is  said  in  the  book  itself  upon  the 
introduction  of  these  documents,  and  that  is,  that  they  bear 
upon  them  "  the  deep  footprints  of  truthy  impressed  upon  our 
earlier  history  ;  which  assertion  can  never  obliterate,  argument 
cannot  remove,  sophistry  cannot  obscure,  time  cannot  erase, 
and  which  even  wars  can  never  destroy !  However  upheaved 
the  foundations  of  society  may  be  by  political  convulsions,  these 
will  stick  to  the  very  fragments  of  the  rocks  of  our  primitive 
formation,  bearing  their  unerring  testimony  to  the  ages  to 
come  !  "  I  mean  further  to  affirm  that  whether  such  presenta 
tion  as  the  one  stated  above  be  successfully  made  in  this  vol 
ume  or  not,  these  materials  bearing  these  foot-prints  here  col 
lected,  constitute  the  only  materials  out  of  which  such  presenta 
tion,  on  the  subjects  whereof  it  treats,  in  abler  and  more  skilful 
hands,  can  ever  be  made ;  and  further  still,  that  no  one  who 
looks  upon  them  as  "  nuisances  "  is  a  proper  judge  of  how  true 
histories  or  historical  views  should  be  composed ! 

But  one  of  the  strange  things  in  this  review  is  that  "  scis 
sors  "  did  not  do  enough  !  More  quotations  ought  to  have  been 
made  from  The  Federalist !  The  proof,  it  is  said,  that  Madison 
and  Hamilton  had  styled  the  Constitution  a  Compact  between 
Sovereign  States  is  to  be  found  in  Numbers  39,  40,  and  85  of 


28  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

The  Federalist !  Webster,  it  is  further  said,  in  his  great  speech 
of  1833,  had  boldly  appealed  to  all  contemporary  history,  to 
the  numbers  of  The  Federalist,  to  the  debates  in  the  Conven 
tion,  to  the  publications  of  friends  and  foes,  to  sustain  him  in 
his  position,  that  the  Constitution  was  not  a  Compact  between 
States. 

"Now,"  asks  Dr.  Bledsoe,  "how  does  Mr.  Stephens  meet  this  bold, 
broad,  and  unscrupulous  assertion  ?  Does  he  go  to  the  history  of  the 
times,  to  The  Federalist,  to  the  various  productions  and  publications 
alluded  to  by  Mr.  Webster,  and  show  his  assertion  to  be  utterly  and  reck 
lessly  false  ?  Does  he  even  show  this,  in  regard  to  the  one  great  point  of 
his  book,  that  '  the  Constitution  was  a  Compact  between  the  States  ? ' 
He  does  not.  '  The  broad  assertion  '  of  Mr.  Webster,  says  he, '  doubtless 
made  a  deep  impression  at  the  time  upon  those  not  conversant  with  the 
facts,  ~but  it  can  have  no  effect  upon  us  who  have  travelled  so  carefully  through 
the  records  of  those  days."1  But  this  will  not  do  ;  we  want  something  more 
than  bare  assertion.  In  questions  of  such  magnitude,  the  bare  assertions 
of  neither  Mr.  Webster  nor -of  Mr.  Stephens  will  do.  We  want  to  see  their 
arguments ;  especially  the  arguments  of  those  who  have  '  travelled  so 
carefully  through  the  records  of  those  days.'  What  records  ?  Is  not  The 
Federalist  (the  only  record  to  which  Mr.  Webster  specifically  appeals), 
worthy  of  notice  ?  Nay,  is  not  this,  beyond  all  comparison,  the  most  im 
portant  of  all  the  '  records  of  those  days '  which  relate  to  the  nature  of 
the  Constitution  ?  Most  assuredly  it  is." 

Most  assuredly,  he  it  said  ~back  to  Dr.  Bledsoe,  it  is  not! 
It  is  not  the  only  record  to  which  Mr.  Webster  specially  ap 
pealed  ;  nor  is  it  the  most  important  of  all  those  to  which  he 
appealed ;  neither  is  it  the  most  important  of  all  the  records  of 
those  days  which  relate  to  the  nature  of  the  Constitution !  Far 
from  it ! 

The  debates  in  the  Federal  Convention,  and  in  the  State 
Conventions,  and  the  official  acts  of  the  States  in  calling  the 
Convention,  and  in  assenting  to  and  ratifying  the  Constitution, 
are  records  of  a  much  higher  order.  Theae  are  the  records 
through  which  the  colloquists  had  travelled  so  carefully.  These 
are  the  records  which  encumber  the  ninety-six  pages  which  the 
Doctor  most  probably  counted  without  reading,  else  he  would 
not  clamor  so  petulantly  for  additional  minor  proof  from  The 
Federalist !  He  complains  that  more  work  of  "  scissors  "  did 


REVIEW  OF  DR.  BLEDSOE'S  REVIEW.  29 

not  show  that  Madison  and  Hamilton,  in  The  Federalist,  gave 
it  as  their  opinion  that  the  Constitution  was  a  Compact  between 
States  ;  while,  if  he  had  been  more  studious  and  less  querulous, 
he  would  have  seen  that  this  fact  had  been  proved  by  evidence 
of  a  much  higher  order !  He  would  have  seen  that  the  tenure 
of  State  Sovereignty  had  been  established,  not  by  secondary 
evidence  of  any  sort,  but  by  the  original  "  title  deeds  "  them 
selves ! 

The  Doctor  would  do  well  to  study  a  book,  at  least  to  under 
stand  it,  before  he  undertakes  to  assail  its  author  for  such  delin 
quencies,  unless  his  object  be  only  to  distort  and  misrepresent. 
This,  indeed,  appears  to  have  been  his  leading,  if  not  sole  ob 
ject,  in  his  notice  of  this  book.  Of  this  many  evidences  could 
be  given.  A  few  will  suffice. 

On  page  268  of  the  Review,  he  makes  quotations  from  my 
speech  on  14th  of  November,  1860,  interlarded  with  words  of 
his  own,  so  as  to  make  the  impression  on  the  minds  of  his  read 
ers  that  he  was  quoting  connectedly  from  me ;  ending  with  a 
grand  poetic  climax  of  his  own  interposition,  which,  by  punctu 
ation,  is  made  to  appear  as  if  taken  from  the  speech,  and  on 
which  he  comments  as  follows : 

"  Now,  all  this  is  very  fine.  We  believe  it  is  called  poetry  ;  and  surely 
nothing,  in  its  proper  place,  is  better  than  poetry,"  etc. 

Now  I  wonder  if  the  Doctor  really  thinks  that  this  stanza 
from  Bryant, 

"  Truth  crushed  to  earth  will  rise  again,"  etc., 

which  he  so  surreptitiously  interpolated  into  my  speech,  is 
-poetry  properly  put  "  in  its  proper  place  ?  "  How  does  he  ex 
cuse  such  "  lese-majesty,  such  a  petty  treason  against  the  great 
republic  of  letters — the  only  republic  we  have  left  to  us  now  ?  " 
•(Review,  page  254.)  Again,  page  272,  he  says : 

"  We  did  not  credit  the  statement  of  a  correspondent,  who  had  visited 
Mr.  Stephens  at  Liberty  Hall,  that  he  represented  himself  as  having  al 
ways  been  a  Secessionist,  and  denied  that  Mr.  Davis  was  originally  one. 
But,  in  the  volume  before  us,  there  is  something  like  these  extraordinary 
assertions." 


30  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

In  tliis  statement  there  is  a  double  misrepresentation.  No 
correspondent,  who  had  visited  me,  ever  stated  that  I  repre 
sented  myself  as  having  always  been  a  Secessionist,  and  denied 
that  Mr.  Davis  was  originally  one,  that  ever  I  heard  of  or  be 
lieve  ;  and  it  is  utterly  untrue  that  there  is  in  the  volume  before 
him  any  thing  like  these  extraordinary  assertions.  Let  any  one 
read  what  I  have  said  of  Mr.  Davis,  and  then  read  what  Dr. 
Bledsoe  has  said  upon  it,  and  he  will  see  something  quite  as 
pitiful,  perhaps,  as  "  the  pitifullest  thing  "  the  Doctor  has  lived 
to  see ! 

On  this  subject  of  "  pity  "  (page  292),  witness  how  lugubri 
ously  he  rages  and  rants ! 

"  We  have  seen,"  says  he,  "  many  pitiful  things  in  our  time.  But — 
pitifullest  of  all ! — we  have,  at  last,  come  to  see  the  Vice-President  of  the 
late  Confederate  States,  the  second  officer  over  a  great  people,  claiming  to 
be  a  prophet,  and  yet  actually  expecting  '  the  down-trodden  people  of  the 
Earth  '  to  be  regenerated  by — *  an  idea  ! '  If  this  thing  had  happened  in 
the  hey-day  of  our  prosperity,  when  all  was  joyous,  and  smiling,  and 
happy  around  us,  there  might,  perhaps,  have  been  some  little  excuse  for 
such  wild  extravagance  of  folly.  But  we  have  passed  through  all  the 
whirlwinds,  and  darkness,  and  distress,  and  storms,  and  wide-wasting 
desolations  of  the  late  Revolution,  only  to  be  told  that  some  'new  idea,' 
or  some  little  raree-show,  will  yet  regenerate  the  world !  And  is  this  a 
philosopher,  or  a  statesman,  or  a  historian,  who  thus  speaks  to  us  ?  Or 
is  it  some  little  jeering  spirit,  whom  the  Arch-Fiend  has  sent  to  us,  to 
make  a  mockery  of  all  the  mighty  hopes  lying  blasted  on  all  sides  around 
us?" 

Did  any  roving  knight  in  the  "  Great  Republic  of  Letters  " 
ever  before  wield  a  more  "trenchant  blade"  than  is  here  so 
truculently  thrust  about  ?  Is  there  any  thing  in  the  exploits 
of  the  most  renowned  of  the  Order  in  Chivalry,  even  of  him  of 
the  "  Sorrowful  Figure "  in  his  most  noted  adventure  against 
the  windmills,  to  be  compared  to  this  ? 

Passing  such  exhibitions  of  ire  and  folly,  without  further 
comment,  let  us  return  to  his  charges  of  inconsistency,  with  his 
perversions  and  misrepresentations.  On  page  276,  he  says : 

"  It  is  evident  that  Mr.  Stephens  did  not  believe  in  the  right  of  Seces 
sion  as  late  as  March  14,  1860  [November,  1860,  perhaps  was  meant,  for 
the  Doctor  hardly  ever  quotes  any  thing  correctly] ;  and,  even  to  the 


REVIEW  OF  DR.   BLEDSOE'S  REVIEW.  31 

present  day,  he  seems  to  entertain  no  very  clear,  well-defined,  or  established 
views  on  the  subject.  In  the  first  colloquy  of  the  volume  before  us,  he 
speaks,  it  is  true,  of  the  right  of  Secession ;  but  he  seems  to  confound  this 
'  constitutional  right '  with  the  extra-constitutional  '  right  of  revolution.' 
Thus,  in  what  he  calls  'The  issue  presented,'  he  says:  'The  war  was 
inaugurated  and  waged  by  those  at  the  head  of  the  Federal  Government 
against  these  States,  or  the  people  of  these  States,  to  prevent  their  with 
drawal  from  the  Union.  On  the  part  of  these  States,  which  had  allied 
themselves  in  a  common  cause,  it  was  maintained  and  carried  on  purely  in 
defence  of  this  great  right,  claimed  by  them,  of  State  Sovereignty  and 
Self-Governnient,  which  they,  with  their  associates,  had  achieved  in  their 
common  struggle  with  Great  Britain,  under  the  Declaration  of  1776,  and 
which,  in  their  judgment,  lay  at  the  foundation  of  the  whole  structure  of 
American  free  institutions.' 

"  Now  here  '  the  great  Right  of  withdrawal  from  the  Union,'  is  repre 
sented  as  the  same  with  that  exercised  by  those  who  withdrew  from  the 
British  Government,  and  set  up  the  great  Republic  of  this  continent." 

This  contains  a  palpable  misrepresentation,  as  well  as  a 
latent  error.  The  great  Right  claimed  by  the  Seceding  States, 
and  in  defence  of  which  the  war  was  waged  on  their  part,  is  not 
(in  the  quotation  from  me)  represented  as  the  same  with  that 
exercised  by  those  who  withdrew  from  the  British  Government. 
No  such  thing.  But  it  is  clearly  and  distinctly  stated  to  be  the 
great  right  of  State  Sovereignty  and  Self-Government  which  had 
l>een  achieved  by  the  war  of  Independence.  This  is  the  mispre- 
sentation. 

Those  who  achieved  their  Independence  under  that  Declara 
tion  did  not  set  up  the  great  Republic  of  this  continent.  There 
is  no  such  thing  as  one,  great  single  Republic  on  this  continent. 
In  the  idea  here  conveyed,  that  there  is,  consists  the  latent 
error.  They  set  up  thirteen  separate  and  distinct  Republics. 
These  thirteen  separate  and  distinct  Republics  set  up  the  great 
Federal  Republic,  of  this  continent.  This  Federal  Republic, 
like  all  Federal  Republics,  is  entirely  Conventional  in  its  origin, 
structure,  nature,  and  powers.  Its  constituents  were  thirteen 
distinct  Sovereign  States.  This  is  what  the  whole  discussion 
on  this  branch  of  the  subject  was  intended  to  elucidate  and 
establish.  But  the  Doctor  goes  on : 

"  In  those  chapters  he  merely  discusses  and  establishes  the  doctrine 
of  the  Sovereignty  of  the  States,  and  the  nature  of  the  Constitution  as  a 


32  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

compact  between  the  States,  without  even  once  alluding  to  the  constitu 
tional  right  of  Secession.  It  cannot  be  said,  that  as  he  held  these  doctrines 
he  must  have  believed  in  the  right  of  Secession,  for  Mr.  Calhoun  held  the 
same  doctrines,  and  established  them  in  his  great  Senatorial  speech  of 
1833,  and  yet  lie  denied  the  right  of  /Secession.  Mr.  Stephens  may  have  done 
the  same  thing,  for  all  that  we  know,  or  for  all  that  he  has  shown  to  the 
contrary." 

What  is  said  of  me  in  this  place  is  another  palpable  mis 
representation,  while  what  is  said  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  by  all  sensi 
ble,  intelligent  people,  can  be  regarded  as  little  short  of  a  down 
right  Munchausmism  !  For  in  that  very  speech  in  1833  (page 
281  of  the  "  Constitutional  View"  etc.),  to  say  nothing  else  of 
the  teachings  of  his  whole  life,  Mr.  Calhoun  distinctly  said : 
"  Having  established  this  point,  I  now  claim,  as  I  stated  I  would 
do  in  the  course  of  the  discussion,  the  admissions  of  the  Senator, 
and  among  them,  the  right  of  /Secession"  etc. 

What  is  said  by  him  in  the  extract,  about  nothing  being  said 
by  me  in  the  book  upon  the  "  Constitutional  Right "  of  Seces 
sion,  is  true ;  but  there  is  a  vast  deal  said  in  it  about  the  Sove 
reign  Right  of  Secession.  This  great  right  is  maintained  through 
out  the  work,  not  as  a  Constitutional  Eight,  or  a  Revolutionary 
Right,  but  as  a  Sovereign  Right.  It  exists,  not  by  virtue  of  the 
Constitution,  but  by  virtue  of  State  Sovereignty.  Mr.  Calhoun 
evidently  claimed  it  upon  the  same  grounds.  But  who,  in  the 
face  of  all  these  facts,  can  say  that  either  I  or  he  ever  denied  the 
Right  of  Secession  f 

On  page  278,  Dr.  Bledsoe  says : 

"In  this  discussion  he  (Mr.  Stephens)  makes  the  wonderful  discovery, 
that  for  '  forty  years  after  the  Government  had  gone  into  operation,'  the 
'  fathers  generally,  as  well  as  the  great  mass  of  the  people  throughout  the 
country,'  maintained  the  opinion  that  the  right  of  Secession  existed.  This 
wonderful  conclusion  is  established,  not  by  an-  appeal  to  the  historic 
records  of  the  country,  but  by  logic.  *  The  right  of  a  State  to  withdraw 
from  the  Union,'  says  he,  *  was  never  denied  or  questioned,  that  I  am 
aware  of,  by  any  jurist,  publicist,  or  statesman  of  character  or  standing, 
until  Kent's  Commentaries  appeared,  in  1826,  nearly  forty  years  after  the 
Government  had  gone  into  operation.'  Hence,  as  the  right  was  not  denied 
by  any  one,  he  concludes  that  '  it  was  generally  recognized  in  all  parts  of 
the  Union.'  The  truth  is,  the  subject  was  not  discussed,  or  considered, 
by  the  public  men  of  the  country  at  all  during  the  period  referred  to  ;  and 


REVIEW  OF  DR.   BLEDSOE'S  REVIEW.  33 

hence  there  was  no  occasion  for  the  expression  of  an  opinion  as  to  the 
right  of  Secession." 

"Was  Dr.  Bledsoe  inad,  crazy,  or  only  excessively  torn  by  Iris 
passions,  under  the  influence  and  instigation  of  some  "  little 
jeering  spirit "  of  evil,  or  "  the  Arch-Fiend  himself,"  when  he 
made  such  statements  ?  The  subject  not  discussed  during  the 
period  referred  to  !  Did  not  Judge  Tucker's  Commentaries 
appear  during  this  period  ?  Did  not  he  clearly  maintain  the 
right  ?  Did  not  some  of  the  E"ew  England  States,  during  this 
period,  threaten  to  secede  ?  Was  not  a  Convention  looking  to 
this  end  called  ?  Were  not  resolutions  passed  embracing  this 
right  ?  Was  not  this  an  occasion  for  the  expression  of  an  opin 
ion  on  the  subject  ?  Did  not  Mr.  E-awle  write  his  Treatise 
during  this  period,  clearly  vindicating  the  right  ?  Are  not  these 
historic  records  appealed  to  and  produced  in  the  loolc  f  There 
they  are  regarded  by  him  as  "nuisances ; "  and  yet  he  assumes 
to  rail  at  the  author  for  not  having  adduced  them  !  Was  there 
ever  a  more  reckless  assertion  than  that  this  "  wonderful  conclu 
sion"  was  arrived  at,  "not  by  an  appeal  to  the  historic  records 
of  the  country,  but  by  logic  ? "  Does  he  show  that  these  records 
are  wrong,  or  that  the  statements  founded  upon  them  were  not 
true  ?  Incontrovertibly  and  imperishably  true  ? 

But  read  him  further : 

"  Is  it  not  wonderful  that,  instead  of  studying  history  in  the  light  of 
its  own  records,  Mr.  Stephens  should  have  attempted  to  reconstruct  it  by 
logic  ? » 

Is  not  a  straight-jacket  more  appropriate  for  a  man  who  thus 
raves,  than  the  business  he  had  in  hand  ? 
On  page  285,  Dr.  Bledsoe  says : 

" '  The  Government  of  the  United  States,'  says  Mr.  Stephens,  '  I  did 
think,  and  do  still  think,  the  best  the  world  ever  saw,  and  I  fear  the  world 
will  never  see  its  like  again.'  " — (Page  31.) 

This  is  another  palpable  and  gross  perversion  of  the  text,  as 
any  one  can  see  by  turning  to  the  page  cited.  As  it  there  stands, 
(except  that  the  italics  are  now  made,)  it  is  in  these  words  : 

"  The  object  in  quitting  the  Union  wras  not  to  destroy,  but  to  save  the 
principles  of  the  Constitution.     The  form  of  government  therein  embodied  I 
3 


34:  THE  KEYIEWERS  KEVIEWED. 

did  think,  and  do  still  think,  the  best  the  world  ever  saw,  and  I  fear  the 
world  will  never  see  its  like  again." 

The  object  of  this  perversion,  which  runs  through  his  entire 
review,  is  apparent.  It  was  that  by  confounding  the  form  of 
the  Government  with  its  administration,  he  might  indulge  his 
passion,  in  holding  up  the  monstrous  spectacle  of  my  extolling 
a  Government  which,  in  its  present  mal-administration,  has  in 
flicted  such  wrongs  upon  me  personally,  and  has  brought  such 
ruin  upon  the  country  generally. 

On  page  293,  in  speaking  of  my  attributing  to  Mr.  Jefferson 
the  "  new  idea "  in  a  Federal  system  (by  which  the  common 
agent  is  empowered  to  act,  to  a  limited  extent,  directly  upon 
the  individual  citizens  of  the  respective  States,  the  States  re 
maining  sovereign),  which  was  adopted*  in  our  system,  (and  from 
which  new  principle,  in  the  opinion  of  De  Tocqueville,  so 
momentous  and  advantageous  consequences  ensued),  the  Doctor 
says: 

"  It  did  not  originate  with  Mr.  Jefferson,  or  first  impregnate  his  brain 
with  celestial  fire.  Or,  if  it  did,  the  fact  was  wholly  unknown  to  James 
Madison.  For,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  great  Debates  of  1787,  Mr. 
Madison  goes  into  the  origin  of  this  *  new  idea ;'  and  he  does  not  even  so 
much  as  allude  to  his  great  friend  Mr.  Jefferson.  He  is,  on  the  contrary, 
compelled  to  give  the  credit  of  this  '  new  idea '  to  Noah  Webster — the 
same  who  made  the  little  spelling-book  and  the  big  Dictionary." 

Now,  Mr .  Madison,  in  the  paper  referred  to,  does  not  go 
into  the  question  of  this  "  new  idea,"  nor  does  he  give  the  credit 
of  it  to  Noah  "Webster.  lie  makes  no  specific  reference  to  it  or 
its  origin  at  all.  What  he  attributes  to  Dr.  "Webster  was  the 
idea  of  a  "new  system,"  wrhich  should  act,  it  is  true,  directly 
upon  individuals,  arfd  not  on  the  States.  But  he  says  nothing 
about  the  Sovereignty  of  the  States  being  retained  under  that 
system.  His  language  on  the  subject  is  this  : 

"  In  the  winter  of  1784-5,  Noah  Webster,  whose  political  and  other 
valuable  writings  had  made  him  known  to  the  public,  proposed,  in  one 
of  his  publications,  a  new  system  of  government  which  should  act,  not  on 
the  States,  but  directly  on  individuals,  and  vest  in  Congress  full  power  to 
carry  its  laws  into  effect."— (Elliot's  Debates,  vol.  5,  p.  118.) 


KEVIEW  OF  DR.  BLEDSOE'S  EEVIEW.        %          35 

In  this,  it  is  seen,  there  is  no  allusion  to  any  idea  of  per 
mitting  the  Federal  Government  to  act  on  the  individual  citi 
zens  of  the  States,  in  limited  and  specified  cases  only,  and  with 
the  full  reservation  of  the  Sovereignty  of  each  of  the  States 
respectively.  In  other  words,  there  is  nothing  in  this  statement 
attributing  to  Dr.  "Webster  any  idea  whatever  which  is  different 
from  the  idea  of  doing  away  entirely  with  the  Federal  system, 
and  instituting  a  new  system  of  a  General  and  National 
Government,  vesting  in  Congress  full  power  to  carry  its  laws 
into  effect,  such  as  Hamilton,  Randolph,  and  other  Nationalists 
espoused  in  the  Convention  afterwards.  Such  a  change  would 
have  been  a  " new  system"  but  it  would  not  have  been  based 
upon  the  " new  idea"  or  new  principle  in  Federal  Republics 
referred  to.  I  have  never  seen  the  pamphlet  of  Dr.  Webster. 
It  may  have  contained  this  identical  "  new  idea"  or  new  prin 
ciple,  which  was  subsequently  incorporated  in  our  Federal 
system,  for  he  was  a  very  profound  philosopher  on  more  subjects 
than  language,  notwithstanding  the  jeering  remarks  of  the 
redoubtable  Dr.  Bledsoe! 

But  Mr.  Madison  could  not,  I  think,  have  intended  to  attri 
bute  the  idea  of  this  new  principle  of  our  present  Federal 
system  to  Dr.  Webster, -for  on  page  120  of  the  5th  volume  of 
Elliot's  Delates  (in  the  same  paper  referred  to  by  Dr.  Bledsoe), 
he  says  : 

"  As  a  sketch  on  paper,  the  earliest,  perhaps,  of  a  Constitutional  govern 
ment  for  the  Union  (organized  into  regular  departments,  with  physical 
means  operating  on  individuals),  to  be  sanctioned  by  the  people  of  tlie 
States,  acting  in  their  original  and  sovereign  character,  was  contained  in 
the  letters  of  James  Madison  to  Thomas  Jefferson  of  the  19th  of  March  ; 
to  Governor  Randolph,  of  the  8th  April ;  and  to  General  Washington,  of 
the  16th  of  April,  1787 — for  which  see  their  respective  dates." 

Now,  in  the  letter  to  Governor  Randolph  of  the  8th  of  April, 
1T87,  alluded  to,  Mr.  Madison  expressly  states :  "  I  hold  it  for 
a  fundamental  point  that  an  individual  independence  of  the 
States  is  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the  idea  of  an  aggregate 
Sovereignty." — Garland's  LifeofJ.  Randolph,  vol.  1,  page  36.) 
This  shows  clearly  that  he  had,  up  to  that  time  (April,  1787), 
no  clear  conception  himself  or  appreciation  of  this  "  new  idea," 


36  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

and  lie  can  hardly,  therefore,  be  supposed  to  have  meant  by 
what  is  said  of  Dr.  Webster's  "  new  system,"  to  attribute  to  him 
this  "new  idea"  for  the  structure  of  a  Federal  system. 
What  he  said  of  Dr.  Webster's  "  new  system,"  was  in  the  same 
paper,  as  stated,  in  which  he  alludes  to  his  own  subsequent 
sketch.  This  sketch  or  plan  is  to  be  found  in  his  letter  to 
General  Washington  referred  to,  (Washington? 8  Writings  by 
Sparks,  page  516,  vol.  9) ;  and  though  it  does  give  a  general 
outline  for  "a  new  system" "  of  Government,  organized  into 
regular  departments,  operating  directly  upon  individuals,  and 
not  the  States ;  yet  it  does  not  contain  this  "  new  idea,"  for  in 
his  plan  the  Sovereignty  of  the  separate  States  was  not  retained. 
It  was  but  the  outline  of  Governor  Randolph's  National  plan, 
which  was  afterwards  submitted  to  the  Philadelphia  Convention, 
when  it  met  in  May,  1787.  This  sketch  does,  also,  provide  for 
a  division  of  the  powers  of  Government,  under  the  new  system 
proposed,  into  Legislative,  Executive,  and  Judicial  Departments. 
But  was  not  even  this  idea  of  such  a  division  of  powers  and 
general  organization,  set  forth  in  this  plan,  which  he  says  was 
the  first  sketch  on  paper  of  a  Constitutional  government  for  the 
Union,  derived  by  him  from  Mr.  Jefferson,  to  whom  I  attri 
buted  it,  though  Mr.  Madison  says  nothing  about  where  he  got 
it  from  ?  The  evidence  is  strong,  if  not  conclusive,  that  it  was. 
For  this  division  of  powers  and  general  system  of  organization 
for  a  Federal  system  of  Government  was  distinctly  pointed  out 
by  Mr.  Jefferson  to  Mr.  Madison,  in  a  letter  from  Paris,  the 
16th  of  December,  1786.  (See  this  letter  in  the  "  Constitutional 
View  of  the  War  "between  the  States,  etc.,  page  94.)  May  not 
Mr.  Madison's  letter  of  the  19th  of  March,  1787,  referred  to  by 
him,  have  been  a  reply  to  this  one  from  Mr.  Jefferson,  of 
.December  previous  ?  In  acknowledging  his  of  the  16th  of 
December  before,  and  in  reply  to  it,  may  he  not  have  sent  him 
a  copy  of  the  same  sketch  on  paper  to  which  he  refers  (a  copy 
of  which  was  sent  to  Washington  a  short  time  afterwards),  and 
which  is  found  among  Washington's  papers?  Is  not  the 
probability,  the  weight  of  evidence,  strongly  that  way  ?  especially 
as  all  we  have,  so  far  as  I  can  find,  of  that  letter  of  Mr.  Madi 
son  to  Mr.  Jefferson,  of  19th  of  March,  1787,  is  a  short  ex- 


EEV1EW  OF  DR.  BLEDSOE'S  REVIEW.        37 

tract  (5th  Elliot,  107),  in  which  there  is  no  reference  whatever 
to  this  subject. 

Now,  in  this  letter  of  Mr.  Jefferson  to  Mr.  Madison,  of  16th 
of  December,  1786,  i\\\&  outline  of  organization  in  anew  system, 
as  set  forth  in  Mr.  Madison's  sketch,  is  fully  given ;  and  not  only 
this,  but  in  that  same  letter  this  "new  idea"'  is  clearly  em 
braced,  though  not  distinctly  expressed.  It  was  because  it  was 
so  embraced  that  I  attributed  the  first  "  impulse  of  its  quicken 
ing  life"  to  the  "brain  of  Mr.  Jefferson,"  (page  479). 

The  general  outline  suggested  in  that  letter  (of  the  16th 
December,  1786,  for  a  new  system,  was  that  the  Union  should 
be  so  modelled  as  "  to  make  us  one  nation  as  to  Foreign  con 
cerns,  and  to  keep  us  distinct  in  Domestic  ones."  "But  to 
enable  the  Federal  Head  to  exercise  the  powers  given  to  it,  to 
the  best  advantage,"  Mr.  Jefferson, said  that  the  General  Gov 
ernment  should  be  "  organized '.'  as  the  State  Governments  were, 
"into  Legislative,  Executive,  and  Judiciary"  Departments. 
Now,  what  I  said  about  this  letter  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  written  to 
Mr.  Madison  four  months  before  his  sketch  was  put  upon  paper, 
is  as  follows : 

"  This,  as  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  discover,  after  no  inconsiderable 
research,  is  the  first  embodied  conception  of  the  general  outline  of  those 
proper  changes  of  the  old  Constitution,  or  Articles  of  Confederation, 
which  were  subsequently,  as  we  shall  see,  actually,  and  in  fact,  engrafted 
on  the  old  system  of  Confederations,  and  which  makes  the  most  marked 
difference  between  ours  and  all  other  like  systems." — (Page  94.) 

The  same  opinion  I  still  repeat,  notwithstanding  all  that 
Dr.  Bledsoe  has  said,  for  his  own  amusement,  about  Dr.  Web 
ster's  "little  spelling-book  and  big  Dictionary."  I  repeat,  I 
have  not  been  able  to  see  Dr.  "Webster's  pamphlet  alluded  to 
by  Mr.  Madison.  It  may  be  that  in  it  he  anticipated  Mr.  Jeffer 
son  in  recommending  that  a  Federal  Government  should  be  so 
formed  as  to  make  us  one  Nation  as  to  foreign  ones,  and  sepa 
rate  and  distinct  ones  as  to  ourselves,  with  an  organization  and 
machinery  in  the  Conventional  State  thus  formed,  for  the  full 
exercise  of  all  its  delegated  and  limited  powers,  similar  to  those 
of  the  separate  States  creating  it.  If  so,  then  he  is  entitled  to 
the  honor  of  this  "  new  idea,"  and  no  small  honor  it  is,  how- 


38  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

ever  little  it  may  be  estimated  or  appreciated  by  superficial 
pretenders.  But,  certainly,  Mr.  Madison's  statement  referred 
to  furnishes  no  just  grounds  upon  which  to  base  a  claim  of  it 
for  him.  Dr.  Bledsoe  has  furnished  no  new  light  upon  the 
subject,  and  I  am  therefore  still  of  opinion  that  the  credit  of 
this  "  new  idea  "  and  "  new  principle  "  in  Federal  Republics, 
which  was  introduced  into  our  system,  is  due  to  Mr.  Jefferson. 

In  conclusion,  I  may  be  excused  for  indulging  in  a  very  few 
words  in  reference  to  other  portions  of  this  review,  which  do 
not  come  within  the  limits  marked  out  for  this  notice. 

For  such  general  reference  let  this  suffice.  The  whole  ar 
ticle  (including  the  parts  I  have  felt  it  a  personal  duty  thus  to 
notice,  as  well  as  all  the  rest),  was  evidently  written  in  ill-hu 
mor — perhaps  during  the  heated  term  of  the  dog-days;  and 
what  Dr.  Bledsoe  says  in  the  same  number  of  the  Quarterly 
(page  433),  of  Dr.  Brownson,  might  be  very  appropriately  said 
of  himself,  in  relation  to  this  production ;  and  might  be  sug 
gested  to  him  as  the  only  appropriately  fitting  answer  to  it,  so 
far  as  he  is  concerned,  to  wit : 

"Had  Dr.  Brownson  bestowed  more  conscientious  labor  on  his  politi 
cal  productions,  with  an  eye  single  to  truth  and  always  steady  [in  ?]  its 
movements,  he  would  have  written  far  less  than  he  did ;  but  then  his 
writings  would  have  been  far  more  worthy  of  the  attention  of  posterity. 
As  it  is,  they  were  born  of  the  passions  of  the  hour,  and,  with  the  passions 
of  the  hour,  they  will  pass  away." 

But  this  he  would  look  upon  as  the  work  of  "  scissors,"  and 
we  know  how  distasteful  that  might  be  to  him. 

Yery  respectfully, 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 


AETICLE  II 

I. — MR.  STEPHENS'  KEPLY  TO  HON.  S.  S.  NICHOLAS,  OF 
KENTUCKY. 

LIBERTY  HALL,  ) 

CRAWFORDVILLE,  GA.,  June  4,  1869.  \ 

Messrs.  Editors  National  Intelligencer,  Washington,  D.  C. : 

I  NOTICED  in  an  issue  of  your  paper  some  weeks  ago,  an  edi 
torial  in  the  following  words  : 

"  The  Prime  Game  of  the  Rebellion. — We  publish  to-day  A  communica 
tion  from  Hon.  S.  S.  Nicholas,  of  Kentucky,  upon  the  '  causa  causans  of 
the  rebellion,  its  remedies,  etc.'  Judge  Nicholas  has  long  been  a  close 
and  intelligent  student  of  our  political  affairs.  A  life-long  and  unswerv 
ing  advocate  of  the  maintenance  of  constitutional  right,  he  has  watched 
with  zealous  regard  every  movement  to  impair  its  force.  To  these  obser 
vations  he  has  brought  the  aid  of  a  powerful  intellect,  an  iron  energy,  the 
experience  of  half  a  century  devoted  to  judicial  and  literary  labors,  and  a 
patriotic  devotion  that  is  questioned  by  none  who  know  him,  although 
oftentimes  differing  widely  from  his  opinions.  A  communication  upon 
such  a  subject  from  such  a  source  must  always  command  respectful  con 
sideration  and  invite  serious  reflection." 

In  the  same  paper  appeared  the  communication  of  Judge 
Nicholas  referred  to,  which  is  entitled  "  The  Causa  Causans  of 
the  Late  ".Rebellion." 

In  this  article  the  writer  indulges  in  some  remarks  in  refer 
ence  to  myself  which  I  do  not  think  ought  to  be  permitted  to 
pass  unnoticed  by  me,  coming  from  the  high  source  they  do, 
and  being  endorsed,  as  they  are,  by  so  high  authority  as  the 
National  Intelligencer.  The  cause  of  truth,  as  I  understand  it, 
requires  that  they  should  not  be  permitted  thus  to  pass.  I 
must,  therefore,  ask  your  indulgence  in  allowing  me  to  make 


4:0  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

such  comments  in  reply  as  I  think  the  matter  deserves.  This 
would  have  been  done  at  an  earlier  day,  but  for  continued 
severe  bodily  affliction.  The  remarks  to  which  I  specially  refer 
are  as  follows : 

"  The  following  condensed  extracts  are  taken  from  the  elaborate  and 
able  book  of  the  Hon.  A.  H.  Stephens  on  the  causes  of  the  late  rebellion, 
and  in  attempted  vindication  of  the  pernicious  dogma  of  secession. 

"  '  In  the  nature  of  the  United  States  Government  and  character  of  the 
Union  can  alone  be  discovered  the  remote  but  real  causes  of  the  war.  All 
these  troubles  resulted  as  inevitable  consequences  from  the  violation  of 
the  fundamental  laws  governing  our  political  system. 

"  '  Negro  slavery  was  unquestionably  the  occasion  of  the  war,  the  main 
exciting  cause  on  both  sides,  but  was  not  the  real  cause,  the  causa  causans, 
of  it. 

"  '  The  war  was  inaugurated  on  the  one  side  to  vindicate  the  Right 
of  Secession,  and  on  the  other  in  denial  of  the  Right  and  to  resist  its  exer 
cise.  It  grew  out  of  opposing  views  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Government, 
and  where,  under  our  system,  ultimate  sovereign  power  or  paramount 
authority  resides.' 

"  Mr.  Stephens  has  a  perfect  right  to  use  his  time  and  talents  in  self- 
justification  as  an  aider  of  the  rebellion;  but  he  is  not  justifiable  in  even 
unintentionally  drawing  upon  the  orthodox  State  Rights  principle  addi 
tional  obloquy  by  his  attempt  to  show  that  '  opposing  views  '  as  to  those 
rights  was  the  true  cause  of  the  civil  war." 

"What  Judge  Nicholas  means  by  "  the  orthodox  State  Rights 
principle  "  he  has  not  stated ;  nor  has  he  intimated  wherein  I 
have  in  the  book,  to  which  he  refers,  "  unintentionally "  or 
otherwise  attempted  to  draw  upon  this  orthodox  principle,  ac 
cording  to  his  idea  of  it,  additional  obloquy  or  obloquy  of  any 
kind.  Nothing  certainly  was  further  from  my  design  than 
what  is  thus  imputed  to  the  result  of  my  labors.  The  great 
object  with  me  was  not  self-justification  barely,  as  he  intimates, 
but  the  vindication  of  the  only  true  State  Eights  principles 
which  are  consistent  with  the  facts  of  the  history  of  our  coun 
try.  On  these  alone  our  entire  fabric  of  Constitutional  Liberty 
was  based  in  the  beginning,  and  on  these  alone  can  it  be  main 
tained  and  preserved  for  the  future.  These  principles,  from 
the  indisputable  and  irrefragable  facts  of  history  adduced  in 
their  vindication,  (and,  I  may  say,  establishment  beyond  the 
power  of  refutation),  necessarily  carry  with  them  the  sover 
eignty  of  the  several  States. 


EEPLY  TO  JUDGE  NICHOLAS.  41 

Whatever  ideas  Judge  Nicholas  may  have  of  the  orthodox 
principle  of  State  Rights,  I  vehtiire  to  affirm  that  it  would  be 
impossible  for  him,  or  anybody  else,  to  name  any  single  right 
of  a  State,  or  any  single  principle  of  State  Rights  under  our 
system,  which  does  not  depend  for  its  existence  upon  the  ne 
cessarily  admitted  sovereignty  of  the  several  States !  There 
is  no  such  thing  as  State  rights  without  State  sovereignty. 
The  States  severally  possess  no  power,  nor  enjoy  any  privilege, 
by  favor,  grant,  or  delegation.  All  their  rights  and  powers,  as 
well  those  retained  as  those  delegated,  are  inherent  and  sover 
eign.  This  is  an  indisputable  truth.  It  is  equally  true  on  the 
other  side,  that  the  General  Government  possesses  no  power  by 
inherent  or  sovereign  right.  All  its  rights  and  powers  are 
held  by  delegation  only ;  and  held  in  trust  by  delegation  from 
the  sovereign  States  constituting  it.  Of  course  I  speak  of 
matters  as  they  stood  " ante  ~bellum" 

If  the  facts  of  our  history  be  as  set  forth  in  the  volume  referred 
to  (and  the  world  is  challenged  to  disprove  them),  then  the  con 
clusions  to  which  they  lead  are  inevitable,  even  though  they 
lead  to  a  complete  justification  of  the  Sovereign  Right  of  Seces 
sion  as  the  only  sure  check  and  barrier  against  the  usurpation 
of  undelegated  power  on  the  part  of  the  General  Government. 
In  the  domain  of  reason  the  conclusions  of  logic  are  inexo 
rable.  This  is  the  appropriate  domain  of  history.  Within  its 
limits  my  labors  were  strictly  confined. 

But  my  object  in  this  note  is  not  to  join  or  raise  any  discus 
sion  with  Judge  Nicholas  on  the  matter  of  "  the  orthodox  State 
Rights  principle."  It  will  be  time  enough  for  me  to  do  this 
with  him  or  anybody  else  when  there  is  an  attempt  made,  by 
reason  and  argument,  to  refute  the  positions  of  the  book  upon 
that  subject.  What  I  do  not  wish  to  permit  to  pass  unnoticed 
is  what  he  styles  "  condensed  extracts  "  from  the  book  referred 
to.  Against  one  of  these  "  condensed  extracts  "  it  is  my  wish 
to  enter  a  respectful  protest.  Many  of  your  readers,  in  this  as 
well  as  in  foreign  countries,  may  see  these  extracts  who  may 
never  see  the  book  itself.  I  do  not  wish  them  to  remain  under 
the  impression  that  I  am  therein  accurately  quoted ;  at  least,  if 
they  give  sufficient  attention  to  the  subject  to  be  impressed  by 


42  THE  KEVIEWERS  EEYIEWED. 

the  matter  at  all,  I  think  it  essential  to  a  correct  understanding 
that  their  opinions  should  be  formed  from  my  own  language, 
and  not  his  representations  of  it. 

What  I  said  about  the  chief  cause,  the  origin,  and  actual  in 
auguration  of  the  war  is  in  these  words : 

"  Slavery,  so-called,  or  that  legal  subordination  of  the  black  race  to  the 
white,  which  existed  in  all  but  one  of  the  States  when  the  Union  was  formed, 
and  in  fifteen  of  them  when  the  war  began,  was  unquestionably  the  occa 
sion  of  the  war,  the  main  exciting,  proximate  cause  on  both  sides — on  the 
one  as  well  as  the  other.  But  it  was  not  the  real  cause,  the  '  causa  cau- 
sans '  of  it.  That  was  the  assumption  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  authori 
ties  that  the  people  of  the  several  States  were,  as  you  say,  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  and  owed  allegiance  to  the  Federal  Government  as  the  ab 
solute  sovereign  power  over  the  whole  country,  consolidated  into  one  na 
tion.  The  war  sprung  from  the  very  idea  you  have  expressed,  and  from 
the  doctrines  embraced  in  the  question  propounded  to  me.  It  grew  out 
of  different  and  directly  opposite  views  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Govern 
ment  of  the  United  States,  and  where,  under  our  system,  ultimate  sover 
eign  power  or  paramount  authority  properly  resides. 

"  Considerations  connected  with  the  legal  status  of  the  black  race  in 
the  Southern  States,  and  the  position  of  several  of  the  Northern  States 
toward  it,  together  with  the  known  sentiments  and  principles  of  those 
just  elected  to  the  two  highest  offices  of  the  Federal  Government,  (Messrs. 
Lincoln  and  Hamlin),  as  to  the  powers  of  that  Government  over  this  sub 
ject,  and  others  which  threatened,  as  was  supposed,  all  their  vital  inter 
ests,  prompted  the  Southern  States  to  withdraw  from  the  Union,  for  the 
very  reason  that  had  induced  them  at  first  to  enter  into  it :  that  is,  for 
their  own  better  protection  and  security.  Those  who  had  the  control  of 
the  administration  of  the  Federal  Government  denied  this  right  to  with 
draw  or  secede.  The  war  was  inaugurated  and  waged  by  those  at  the 
head  of  the  Federal  Government  against  these  States,  or  the  people  of 
these  States,  to  prevent  their  withdrawal  from  the  Union.  On  the  part 
of  these  States  which  had  allied  themselves  in  a  common  cause,  it  was 
maintained  and  carried  on  purely  in  defense  of  this  great  right,  claimed 
by  them,  of  State  Sovereignty  and  Self-Government,  which  they  with 
their  associates  had  achieved  in  their  common  struggle  with  Great  Brit 
ain,  under  the  Declaration  of  1776  ;  and  which,  in  their  judgment,  lay  at 
the  foundation  of  the  whole  structure  of  American  free  institutions. 

"This  is  a  succinct  statement  of  the  issue,  and  when  the  calm  and  en 
lightened  judgment  of  mankind,  after  the  passions  of  the  day  shall  have 
passed  off,  and  shall  be  buried  with  the  many  gallant  and  noble-spirited 
men  who  fell  on  both  sides  in  the  gigantic  struggle  which  ensued,  shall 
be  pronounced,  as  it  will  be,  upon  the  right  or  wrong  of  the  mighty  con- 


EEPLY  TO  JUDGE  NICHOLAS.  43 

test,  it  must  be  rendered  in  favor  of  the  one  side  or  the  other,  not  accord 
ing  to  results,  but  according  to  the  right  in  the  issue  thus  presented." — 
Constitutional  View  of  the  Late  War  "between  the  States,  Vol.  1,  p.  28. 

'Now,  if  Judge  Nicholas  saw  no  difference  between  the  issue 
as  thus  presented  by  me  touching  the  inauguration  of  the  war, 
and  that  in  his  "  condensed  extract,"  then,  perhaps,  it  would  be 
a  useless  waste  of  time  to  argue  with  him  upon  the  subject  of 
State  Eights,  or  any  other  question  which  requires  close  atten 
tion  to  the  proper  import  of  words.  If  he  did  see  the  difference, 
then,  there  is  no  need  for  any  further  defense  before  an  intelli 
gent  public  for  Ms  arraignment  of  me  for  doing  what  he  is 
pleased  so  gratuitously  to  say  I  had  no  right  to  do,  or  was  "  not 
justifiable  "  in  doing.  The  real  cause  of  the  war,  as  set  forth 
in  the  issue  presented  by  me,  condensed  in  few  words,  was  the 
denial  of  the  fact  that  ours  was  a  Federal  Government ;  and  a 
violation  of  this  fundamental  principle  of  our  complicated  polit 
ical  organization  on  the  part  of  those  controlling  the  General 
Government  at  the  time,  by  assuming  that  the  United  States 
constituted  a  nation  of  individuals,  with  a  consolidated  sover 
eignty  in  the  Central  Government,  to  which  the  ultimate  as 
well  as  primary  allegiance  of  the  citizens  of  the  several 
States  was  due ;  and  that  any  attempt  by  the  several  States,  or 
any  of  them,  to  resume  the  sovereign  powers  which  had  been 
previously  delegated  in  trust  only  by  them  to  the  Federal 
agency,  was  rebellion  on  their  part.  This  violation  of  organic 
principles  is  stated  to  have  been  the  immediate  and  real  cause 
of  the  war — the  "  causa  causans  "  of  it.  This  statement,  sus 
tained  by  indestructible  facts  as  it  is,  must  remain  the  truth  of 
history  for  all  time  to  come. 

As  to  the  origin  of  the  war,  or  the  first  outbreak  of  hostili 
ties,  I  did  not  say  that  it  was  "  inaugurated  on  the  one  side  to 
vindicate  the  Eight  of  Secession,  and  on  the  other  in  denial  of 
the  right  and  to  resist  its  exercise." 

It  was  not  inaugurated  by  the  Seceding  States  at  all.  It 
was  inaugurated  and  waged  by  those  then  controlling  the  Fed 
eral  Government  to  prevent  Secession.  On  the  part  of  the 
Seceding  States,  it  was  carried  on  purely  in  defense  of  their 
right  to  withdraw  from  the  Federal  Union  of  States,  which  they 


44  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

claimed  as  a  Sovereign  Eight.  This  is  the  substance  of  the 
statement  on  that  point ;  and  so  the  fact  will  go  down  to  pos 
terity. 

The  truth  is  well  established  that  the  Seceding  States  did 
not  wish  or  desire  war.  Very  few  of  the  public  men  in  these 
States  even  expected  war.  All  of  them,  it  is  true,  held  them 
selves  in  readiness  for  it,  if  it  should  be  forced  upon  them 
against  their  wishes  and  most  earnest  protestations. 

This  is  abundantly  and  conclusively  apparent  from  the 
speeches  and  addresses  of  their  leading  public  men  at  the  time. 
It  is  apparent  from  the  resolutions  of  the  State  Legislatures  and 
the  State  Conventions,  before  and  in  their  Acts  of  Secession. 
It  is  apparent  and  manifest  from  their  Acts  in  their  new  Con 
federation  at  Montgomery.  It  is  apparent  from  the  Inaugural 
Address  of  President  Davis.  It  is  apparent  from  the  appoint 
ment  of  Commissioners  to  settle  all  matters  involved  in.  the 
separation  from  their  former  confederates,  honorably,  peaceably, 
amicably,  and  justly.  It  is  apparent  and  manifest  from  every 
act  that  truly  indicates  the  objects  and  motives  of  men,  or  from 
which  their  real  aims  can  be  justly  arrived  at.  Peace  not  only 
with  the  States  from  which  they  had  separated,  but  peace 
with  all  the  world,  was  the  strong  desire  of  the  Confederate 
States. 

The  war  was  not  only  inaugurated  by  the  authorities  at 
Washington,  as  stated,  but  it  was  inaugurated  by  them  while 
the  Confederate  Commissioners,  with  the  olive-branch  of  peace 
in  their  hands,  were  at  the  seat  of  the  General  Government ; 
and  were  given  to  understand  by  those  in  authority  there,  that 
Fort  Sumter,  which  became  the  scene  of  the  first  conflict  of 
arms,  would,  at  an  early  day,  be  peacefully  evacuated  by  the 
Federal  troops  then  holding  it.  The  war  was  inaugurated,  if 
not  begun,  when  the  hostile  fleet  set  out  for  Charleston  for  the 
purpose  of  reinforcing  that  fort,  "fas  aut  nefas."  Hallam  has 
well  said,  that  the  "  aggressor  in  a  war  is  not  the  first  who  uses 
force,  but  the  first  who  renders  force  necessary."  And  so  the 
facts  of  history  will  ever  show  how  and  by  whom  this  late  terri 
ble  and  most  lamentable  war  was  inaugurated  as  well  as  by 
whom  it  was  begun.  They  will  show  who  were  the  actual 


EEPLY  TO  JUDGE  NICHOLAS.  45 

aggressors,  and  who  first  violated  the  organic  principles  and 
laws  of  our  American  system  of  Self-Government  by  the  people. 

Whatever  may  be  the  ultimate  results  of  this  war,  so  far  as 
the  fate  of  Constitutional  Liberty  on  this  continent  is  concerned, 
the  responsibility  of  its  inauguration  can  never  be  justly  and 
truly  charged  upon  the  Seceding  States. 

Their  object  in  separating  from  their  associates,  with  whom 
they  considered  they  had  been  united  in  a  Federal  compact,  was 
not  only  to  remain  in  peace  with  them,  but  to  preserve  and 
perpetuate  the  principles  of  that  Constitution  which  had  demon 
strated  such  wondrous  results  as  a  bond  of  Union  between 
Sovereign  States  so  long  as  its  principles  had  been  adhered  to ; 
but  which  they  apprehended,  under  erroneous  construction,  if 
not  checked,  would  soon  lead  to  consolidation  and  despotism. 

If  they  were  right  in  their  position  that  ours  was  a  Federal 
Government,  then  the  authorities  at  Washington  were  the  ag 
gressors  in  inaugurating  the  war  to  prevent  the  exercise  of  the 
right  of  withdrawal ;  if  they  were  wrong  in  their  position  as  to 
the  character  of  the  General  Government ;  if  it,  in  fact,  was  not 
Federal  in  its  nature  and  character,  but  was  a  Government  with 
a  consolidated  sovereignty  in  the  central  head,  then  they  were 
the  aggressors  in  rendering  the  inauguration  of  the  war  neces 
sary  for  the  maintenance  of  central  supremacy.  The  whole 
matter -of  right  or  wrong  in  the  beginning  of  the  war,  as  well 
as  its  disastrous  consequences,  depends  upon  the  great  question, 
whether  the  General  Government  was  a  Federal  Republic  or 
not,  and  what,  under  the  Constitution,  was  the  true  "  orthodox 
State  rights  principle  "  to  which  Judge  Nicholas  refers,  but  does 
not  enlighten  the  public  upon.  In  other  words,  it  depends 
upon  the  true  answer  to  the  question,  where,  under  our  system, 
does  sovereignty  reside?  Is  it  lodged  in  the  General  Govern 
ment,  or  has  it  passed  to  the  whole  people  of  the  United  States 
as  one  aggregate  mass,  or  does  it  still  remain  with  the  people 
of  the  several  States  as  distinct  political  organizations  ? 

The  doctrine  of  the  book  is  that  sovereignty  resides  just 
where  it  did  in  1776,  1Y78,  and  1787 — that  is,  with  the  %>eopU 
of  the  several  States  !  It  maintains  that  all  that  the  States  did 
by  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  was  to  delegate,  in  trust, 


46  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

the  exercise  of  certain  specific  and  limited  sovereign  powers  to 
the  General  Government,  while  they  retained  to  themselves, 
severally,  sovereignty  itself,  that  great  source  from  which  all 
political  powers  emanate. 

This  doctrine,  I  must  insist,  too,  is  not  only  the  true  doc 
trine,  but  the  orthodox  doctrine  upon  the  subject ;  Judge  Nich 
olas'  opinion  to  the  contrary,  notwithstanding.  Upon  the 
point  of  orthodoxy,  in  reference  to  this  matter,  I  know  of  but 
one  standard  on  the  subject,  and  that  is  the  Jefferson  standard, 
erected  and  established  in  the  first  of  Kentucky's  great  resolves 
of  1798.  The  doctrine  of  this  chief  apostle  of  State  Rights  and 
human  rights,  then  announced,  rescued  and  saved  the  country 
from  consolidation  and  centralism  in  1801.  Under  the  opera 
tion  of  this  most  orthodox  principle  so  established,  with  the 
general  and  tacit  acknowledgment  of  its  correctness  by  all  the 
Departments  of  the  Government,  we  increased,  grew,  and  pros 
pered  for  sixty  years  as  no  nation  on  earth  ever  did  before. 
Whatever  disturbances  temporarily  marred  the  harmony  of  the 
general  system  in  the  interval  upon  the  subjects  of  tariffs,  in 
ternal  improvements,  the  status  of  the  African  population,  etc., 
grew  out  of  departures,  or  attempted  departures,  in  the  Federal 
Administrations  from  the  standard  thus  erected  by  Jefferson  as 
to  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  powers  of  the  Federal  Govern 
ment.  The  more  nearly  the  principles  taught  by  him  were 
adhered  to,  the  more  prosperous  and  happy  the  nation  was  in  all 
its  parts  and  members. 

I  use  the  word  nation  in  this  connection  purposely;  for, 
notwithstanding  the  very  great  abuse  of  this  word,  in  very 
recent  times,  we  are  nevertheless  a  nation  in  a  very  proper  use 
of  that  term.  Far  was  it  from  my  object  in  the  argument,  in 
the  volume  referred  to  by  Judge  Nicholas,  to  show  that  "  the 
United  States  do  not  constitute  a  nation,"  as  I  have  seen  it 
stated  by  some  writer,  in  what  he  was  pleased  to  consider  a 
review  of  the  work.  The  great  object  with  me,  on  the  contrary, 
was  to  show  not  only  that  we  are  a  nation,  but  what  sort  of  a 
nation  we  are !  It  is  most  clearly  demonstrated  in  that  argu 
ment  that  we  are  not  a  nation  of  individuals,  blended  in  a 
common  mass,  with  a  consolidated  sovereignty  over  the  whole ; 


REPLY  TO  JUDGE  NICHOLAS.  47 

but  it  is  shown  with  equal  clearness  that  we  are  a  nation,  the 
constituent  elements  or  members  of  which  are  separate  and 
distinct  political  organizations,  States,  or  Sovereignties ! 

It  is  shown  that  ours  is  a  conventional  nation  ! — one  created 
by  compact.  All  federal  republics,  and  all  confederations  be 
tween  separate  and  distinct  sovereign  powers,  are  conventional 
nations.  "We  were  a  nation  under  the  first  Articles  of  Confede 
ration,  and  we  are  just  such  a  nation  now — not  a  nation  of  one 
people  or  one  political  Organization,  but  a  nation  of  several  dis 
tinct  political  organizations.  We  are  a  "  confederated  nation," 
as  Washington  properly  styled  the  present  Union.  That  is,  a 
nation  of  States,  or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  a  nation  of  nations  ! 
— Hence  the  appropriateness  of  the  motto  adopted  by  the  fathers 
to  express  the  idea  of  the  work — "  Epluribus  unum." 

In  this  sense  we  are  not  only  a  nation,  but  a  nation  in  the 
highest  and  grandest  type  that  the  world  ever  saw.  It  rises 
above  the  simple  to  the  complex  form. 

It  is,  indeed,  in  many  respects,  a  peculiar  nation,  even  in 
its  complex  form ;  differing  from  all  other  nations  of  its  own 
type  in  many  of  its  most  striking  characteristics.  These  peculiar 
features  of  its  structure  place  it  far  in  advance  of  all  other  Con 
federate  Republics  in  its  wise  provisions  for  the  preservation 
of  free  institutions,  if  it  be  but  rightly  administered.  The  most 
important  of  these  features  is  the  new  principle  which  it  intro 
duced  in  the  plan  of  federal  unions,  of  permitting  the  common 
government,  the  conventional  power  or  nation,  to  execute  its 
delegated  powers,  within  their  limited  sphere,  directly  upon  the 
citizens  of  the  several  States,  or  smaller  nationalities  composing 
it. 

This  new  idea  of  so  constituting  a  Federal  Republic  as  to 
make  of  its  separate  members  "  one  nation  as  to  all  Foreign 
concerns,  and  to  keep  them  distinct  as  to  Domestic  ones,"  with 
a  division  of  the  powers  delegated  into  "  Legislative,  Executive, 
and  Judicial  departments,"  with  a  perfect  machinery  of 
government  to  operate  within  prescribed  limits  in  the  execution 
of  the  delegated  powers,  constitutes  the  most  striking  difference 
between  our  present  Federal  Union  and  all  former  republics  of 
its  class.  It  marks  the  greatest  stride  of  progress  in  free  insti- 


48  THE  KEVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

tutions  ever  before  made.  It  is  this  whjch  has  so  impressed  the 
minds  and  excited  the  admiration  of  intelligent  foreigners  in 
contemplating  the  wonderful  workings  of  the  American  system. 
This  is  the  feature  to  which  the  learned  and  philosophic  De 
Tocqueville  refers  when,  speaking  of  our  Constitution,  he 
says: 

"  This  Constitution,  which  may  at  first  be  confounded  with  the  federal 
constitutions  which  have  preceded  it,  rests  in  truth  upon  a  wholly  novel 
theory,  which  may  be  considered  as  a  great  discovery  in  modern  science. 
.  .  ..  .  And  this  difference  produced  the  most  momentous  conse 
quences." 

Of  the  same  feature  Lord  Brougham  has  recorded  his  opinion 
in  the  following  words  of  high  import : 

"  It  is  not  at  all  a  refinement  that  a  Federal  Union  should  be  formed  ; 
this  is  the  natural  result  of  men's  joint  operations  in  a  very  rude  state  of 
society.  But  the  regulation  of  such  a  Union  upon  pre'established  prin 
ciples,  the  formation  of  a  system  of  government  and  legislation  in  which 
the  different  subjects  shall  be,  not  individuals,  but  States,  the  application 
of  legislative  principles  to  such  a  body  of  States,  and  the  devising  means 
for  .keeping  its  integrity  as  a  Federacy  while  the  rights  and  powers  of  the 
individual  States  are  maintained  entire,  is  the  yery  greatest  refinement  in 
social  policy  to  which  any  state  of  circumstances  has  ever  given  rise,  or  to 
which  any  age  has  ever  given  birth." — Brougham's  Political  Philosophy, 
Vol.  3,  p.  336. 

This  grand  conception  of  so  forming,  modelling,  and  consti 
tuting  our  Union  of  States,  which  so  impressed  De  Tocqueville, 
and  which  Lord  Brougham  considered  "  the  very  greatest  re 
finement  in  social  policy  "  "  to  which  any  age  has  ever  given 
birth,"  originated  with  Mr.  Jefferson.  It  came  from  the  same 
master-mind  whose  master  hand  drew  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence  in  1776,  and  in  1798  set  forth  with  so  much  clearness 
and  power  the  true,  if  not  at  present  orthodox  principles  of  the 
whole  structure  of  our  Federal  organization,  in  the  entire  series 
of  Kentucky's  famous  Resolutions,  before  referred  to,  and  which 
were  so  thoroughly  endorsed  and  established  by  the  country  in 
1801.  To  the -administration  of  the  Government  in  conformity 
with  these  principles,  or  with  but  slight  departure  from  them, 
the  "  momentous  consequences  "  spoken  of  by  De  Tocqueville, 


EEPLY  TO  JUDGE  NICHOLAS.  49 

distinguishing  our  unparalleled  carer,  for  sixty  years,  in  growth, 
prosperity,  happiness,  and  real  greatness,  are  mainly  attributable. 
And  now,  Messrs.  Editors,  do  you  ask,  Oui  bono  f  Why  so 
much  written  upon  the  dead  issues  of  the  past,  when  questions 
of  so  much  magnitude  of  a  practical  character  press  upon  the 
public  mind  ?  If  so,  the  reply  is  twofold.  First,  to  vindicate 
the  truth  of  history,  which  is  itself  a  high  duty  on  the  part  of 
every  one  who  has  it  in  his  power  to  do  it ;  and,  in  the  second 
place,  to  show  the  people  of  the§e  States,  in  this  vindication, 
not  only  the  true  cause,  the  real  "  causa  causans"  of  the  late 
war,  but  the  real  cause  of  their  present  troubles.  The  Federal 
machinery  for  the  last  ten  years  has  been  abnormal  in  its  action. 
It  must  be  brought  back  to  the  Jeffersonian  doctrines,  and 
made  to  conform  in  its  workings  with  the  organic  principles  of 
its  structure,  before  there  can  possibly  be  a  return  of  the  days 
of  peace,  harmony,  prosperity,  and  happiness  which  formerly 
marked  our  course.  There  is  no  other  hope  for  constitutional 
liberty  on  this  continent.  Judge  Nicholas  may  "  dream 
dreams  "  about  another  Constitutional  Amendment,  providing 
a  new  mode  of  electing  the  President,  but  the  remedy  lies  in 
no  such  device  as  that.  It  lies1  simply  in  bringing  back  the 
Government  in  its  administration  to  original  first  principles. 
This  is  to  be  done,  not  by  Secession,  however  rightful  and  effi 
cient  a  remedy  that  might  be.  That  is  abandoned.  Nor  is  it  to  be 
done  by  force  or  violence  of  any  kind,  except  the  force  of  reason 
and  the  power  of  truth.  It  is  to  be  done,  if  at  all,  at  the  ballot- 
box.  Free  institutions  are  more  generally  lost  than  established  or 
strengthened  by  a  resort  to  physical  force.  They  are  eminently 
the  achievement  of  virtue,  patriotism,  and  reason.  That  our 
institutions,  and  even  nominal  form  of  government,  are  now  in 
great  danger,  the  prudent,  sagacious,  and  wise  everywhere  vir 
tually  admit.  An  able  editorial  in  your  own  paper,  not  long 
since,  put  the  pertinent  and  grave  question,  ."Whither  are  we 
drifting  ? "  To  this  question  I  take  the  occasion,  for  one,  to 
give  you  a  direct  and  positive  answer.  We  are  drifting  to  con 
solidation  and  empire,  and  will  land  there  at  no  distant  period 
as  certainly  as  the  sun  will  set  this  day,  unless  the  people  of  the 
several  States  awake  to  a  proper  appreciation  of  the  danger, 
4 


50  THE  REVIEWERS  'REVIEWED. 

and  save  themselves  from  the  impending  catastrophe  by  arrest 
ing  the  present  tendency  of  public  affairs.  This  they  can 
properly  do  only  at  the  ballot-box.  All  friends  of  Constitu 
tional  Liberty,  in  every  section  and  State,  must  unite  in  this 
grand  effort.  They  must  seriously  consider,  and  even  recon 
sider  many  questions  to  which  they  have  given  but  slight  atten 
tion  heretofore.  They  must  acquaint  themselves  with  the 
principles  of  their  Government,  and  provide  security  for  the 
future  by  studying  and  correcting  the  errors  of  the  past. 

This  is  the  only  hope,  as  I  have  stated,  for  the  continuance 
of  even  our  present  nominal  form  of  government.  Depend 
upon  it,  there  is  no  difference  between  consolidation  and  em 
pire  !  No  difference  between  centralism  and  imperialism  !  The 
end  of  either,  as  well  as  all  of  these,  is  the  overthrow  of  liberty 
and  the  establishment  of  despotism.  I  give  you  the  words  of 
truth  in  great  earnestness — words  which,  however  received  or 
heeded  now,  will  be  rendered  eternally  true  by  the  develop 
ments  of  the  future. 

Yours,  most  respectfully, 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 


II. — REJOINDER  OF  JUDGE  NICHOLAS. 

MR.  STEPHENS,  in  reponse  to  my  former  number,  complains 
of  injustice  done  him  by  my  "  condensed  extracts "  from  his 
book.  The  sole  object  in  the  condensation  was  to  attain  that 
brevity  so  indispensable  in  newspaper  discussion.  If  it  has  been 
so  unsuccessful  as  to  make  him  fancy  even  that  injustice  has 
been  done  him,  -I  must  make  the  amende  of  an  ample  apology 
and  the  expression  of  sincere  regret. 

He  now  says  that  the  Federal  Government  "  must  be  brought 
back  to  the  Jeffersonian  doctrines,  and  made  to  conform  in  its 
workings  with  the  organic  principles  of  its  structure,  before 
there  can  possibly  be  a  return  of  the  days  of  peace,  harmony, 
prosperity,  and  happiness  which  formerly  marked  our  course. 
There  is  no  other  hope  for  constitutional  liberty  on  this  con 
tinent.  .  .  .  This  is  to  be  done,  not  by  secession,  however  right 
ful  and  efficient  a  remedy  that  might  be.  That  is  abandoned. 


REJOINDER  OF  JUDGE  NICHOLAS.  51 

Nor  is  it  to  be  done  by  force  or  violence  of  any  kind,  except  the 
force  of  reason  and  the  power  of  truth.  It  is  to  be  done,  if  at 
all,  at  the  ballot-box."  In  another  place  he  speaks  of  "the 
Sovereign  Eight  of  Secession  as  the  only  check  and  barrier 
against  the  usurpation  of  undelegated  power  on  the  part  of  the 
General  Government." 

Whilst  thus  conceding  that  the  ballot-box  is  the  only  remedy 
for  the  restoration  of  the  prostrate  Constitution,  he  takes  care 
to  claim  that  the  only  Valuable  restoration  must  be  accompanied 
by  recognition  of  the  right  of  secession  as  a  part  of  the  only 
orthodox  principle  of  State-rights.  'Nor  does  he  insist  upon  this 
alone  for  the  protection  of  State-rights,  but  involves  the  indi 
vidual  rights  of  citizens  in  the  same  category,  declaring  "  the 
Sovereign  Right  of  Secession  as  the  only  check  and  barrier 
against  the  usurpation  of  undelegated  power." 

Concurring  most  heartily  in  the  great  necessity  for  a  restora 
tion  of  the  Constitution  through  the  ballot-box,  and  in  view  of 
the  great  influence  which  Mr.  Stephens  has  at  the  South,  the 
propriety  and  expediency  of  these  utterances  of  his  becomes  an 
important,  living  issue,  well  worthy  the  serious  consideration 
of  all  who  sincerely  desire  a  speedy  restoration  of  the  Constitu 
tion.  The  remedy  being  exclusively  in  the  ballot-box,  there 
must  be  concert  of  action,  if  not  identity  of  proclaimed  views, 
North  and  South,  in  the  party  attempting  the  restoration.  Any 
recognition  direct  or  indirect  of  the  right  of  secession  must  be 
a  preat  obstacle  in  obtaining  such  concert  of  action,  as  there  are 

O  O  7 

not  probably  five  hundred  men  at  the  North  who  believe  in  or 
are  at  all  willing  to  concede  such  a  right.  If,  as  he  says,  that 
right  as  a  remedy  is  abandoned,  where  the  expediency  or  policy 
for  thus  pertinaciously  insisting  upon  its  legitimacy,  where  it 
will  require  all  the  suasion  that  can  be  used  to  make  the  people 
of  the  North  believe  that  it  is  veritably  abandoned,  and  is  not 
to  continue  the  aim  of  a  ceaseless  controversy  at  the  South,  and 
of  all  those  elsewhere  who  claim  the  protection  of  orthodox 
State-rights  as  a  healing  motive  for  the  restoration  of  the  Con 
stitution. 

The  verity  of  this  being  a  living  issue  consists  in  the,  obvious 
necessity  of  influential  men  at  the  South  doing  what  they  can 


52  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

to  obviate  the  injury  which  these  utterances  of  Mr.  Stephens 
will  cause  both  North  and  South,  if  they  remain  uncontradicted, 
as  a  true  exposition  of  Southern  sentiment.  No  hearty  coopera 
tion  at  the  North  for  a  restoration  of  the  Constitution  can  be 
rationally  expected  so  long  as  it  is  even  suspected  that,  in  the 
pursuit  of  constitutional  restoration,  Southern  men  are  looking 
to  it  as  a  means  for  the  ultimate  recognition  of  the  right  of 
secession.  These  utterances  are  as  ill-advised  as  was  the  dis 
astrous  interference  with  the  New  York  convention  by  unpar- 
doned  Southern  generals. 

If  Southern  men  of  influence  concur  with  him  in  the  opinion 
that  the  right  of  secession  is  the  only  barrier  against  Federal 
usurpation,  then  they  can  have  little  motive  for  aiding  Constitu 
tion  restoration ;  its  great  purpose  being  our  restoration  to  the 
protection  of  that  legitimate  barrier  against  usurpation  which  is 
sufficient,  according  to  the  former  creed  of  all  lovers  and  ad 
mirers  of  the  Constitution. 

So  far  from  there  being  any  chance  of  ever  revolutionizing 
the  anti-secession  sentiment  of  the  North,  it  is  the  belief  of  men 
fully  as  sagacious  as  Mr.  Stephens  on  questions  of  practical  states 
manship,  that  if  a  National  Convention  for  revising  the  Constitu 
tion  be  held  ten  or  twenty  years  hence,  not  a  voice  will  be 
raised  in  it — no,  not  even  from  South  Carolina — for  the  direct 
recognition  of  the  right  of  secession.  Instead  of  establishing 
such  a  loose  impracticability  as  a  form  of  government,  the  danger 
is  altogether  the  other  way ;  that  is,  the  increase  of  territory  and 
population,  by  demonstrating  the  necessity  of  strong  govern 
ment,  will  induce  public  sentiment  in  favor  of  one  that  will  be 
unnecessarily  strong.  As  things  now  are,  there  seems  to  be  a 
disposition  on  the  part  of  men  of  Mr.  Stephens'  stamp  to  waive, 
for  the  present  at  least,  the  right  of  secession  as  an  impracticable 
dogma,  resting,  as  it  does,  upon  a  non-expressed,  but  purely 
inferential,  hypothesis.  But  that  in  truth  should  constitute  no 
reason  for  withholding  a  total  abnegation  of  the  dogma  whose 
falsity  is  proved  by  the  admission  of  its  impracticability.  If  the 
right  of  secession  were  distinctly  recognized  in  the  Constitution, 
it  would  never  be  used  for  any  available  purpose.  If,  for  in 
stance,  Louisiana,  Kentucky,  or  Pennsylvania  were  to  exercise 


ME.   STEPHENS'  SUE-REJOINDER.  53 

the  right  by  declaring  its  independence,  the  only  result  would 
be  giving  the  Government  the  trouble  of  declaring  war  against 
it  and  conquering  its  reannexation  as  foreign  territory.  No 
statesman  of  ordinary  practical  sagacity  can  doubt  this. 

As  to  ultimate  sovereignty  and  paramount  allegiance,  there 
is  no  need  for  diving  into  the  abstractions  of  political  metaphys 
ics  for  ascertaining  what  they  are  in  reference  to  American 
citizens.  They  both  belong  to  the  Federal  Constitution.  All 
of  us  who  have  passed  through  office,  Federal  or  State,  have 
bound  ourselves  to  that  supremacy  and  allegiance  by  a  solemn 
oath. 

As  to  orthodox  State  rights,  they  consist  of  such  power  as 
is  neither  granted  to  the  Federal  Government  nor  forbid  to  the 
States  by  the  Constitution,  with  a  plainly-implied  negation  of 
any  right  to  nullify  or  secede,  which  negation  is  to  be  taken  as 
part  of  what  is  forbidden  to  the  States. 

State  rights  are  very  important  and  sacred,  but  not  more  so 
than  the  individual  rights  of  citizens.  Politically  speaking,  the 
sacredness  of  both  rests  mainly  on  the  consecration  given  them 
by  the  nation  in  the  Constitution. 


III. — MR.  STEPHENS'  SUR-REJOINDER  TO  JUDGE  NICHOLAS. 

LIBERTY  HALL,  ) 

CRAWFORDVILLE,  GA.,  June  23,  1869.  \ 

Messrs.  Editors  of  the  National  Intelligencer,  Washington,  D.  C. : 
GENTLEMEN  :  You  will  please  allow  me,  I  trust,  a  few  words 
in  rejoinder  to  Judge  Nicholas.  It  is  not  my  purpose  or  inten 
tion  to  protract  a  useless  controversy  with  him.  Discussions 
are  seldom  instructive,  or  even  entertaining,  when  the  positions 
or  "utterances"  of  one  side  are  either  not  comprehended,  or 
not  fully  and  fairly  set  forth  by  the  other. 

In  his  response  to  my  former  .letter  correcting  the  statement 
in  his  "  condensed  extracts  "  from  the  book  referred  to,  as  to 
my  position  therein  assumed,  touching  the  inauguration  of  the 
late  war,  etc.,  he  makes  all  the  amende  and  apology  that  was 
expected.  This,  in  substance,  is,  that  he  saw  no  difference  be- 


54:  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

tween  the  position  in  the  book  and  the  one  assigned  in  the 
"condensed  extracts  ; "  and  that  if  I  fancied  there  was  any,  he 
sincerely  regrets  it,  etc.  To  your  readers,  who  now  have  both 
fully  before  them,  no  further  comments  are  necessary — not  even 
on  the  amende  and  apology  as  made.  There  that  matter  may 
rest ;  and  if  he  had  stopped  there  himself,  I  should  not  have 
asked  your  indulgence  for  any  further  hearing. 

But,  in  his  response,  he  takes  occasion  to  comment  upon 
certain  utterances  (as  he  styles  them)  of  mine  in  that  letter,  and, 
in  these  comments,  is  quite  as  much  at  fault  in  quoting  from 
the  letter  as  he  was  in  his  "  condensed  extracts  "  from  the  book. 
This  error  was  quite  as  unintentional  on  his  part,  no  doubt,  as 
the  others ;  still  it  is  of  too  grave  a  character  to  be  allowed  to 
pass  unnoticed. 

In  his  comments  upon  the  letter  the  following  paragraph 
appears : 

"He  (alluding  to  me)  now  says  that  the  Federal  Government  'must  be 
brought  back  to  the  Jeffersonian  doctrines,  and  made  to  conform  in  its 
workings  with  the  organic  principles  of  its  structure,  before  there  can 
possibly  be  a  return  6f  the  days  of  peace,  harmony,  prosperity,  and  happi 
ness  which  formerly  marked  our  course.  There  is  no  other  hope  for  Con 
stitutional  Liberty  on  this  continent.  .  .  .  This  is  to  be  done,  not  by  Seces 
sion,  however  rightful  and  efficient  a  remedy  that  might  be.  That  is 
abandoned!  Nor  is  it  to  be  done  by  force  or  violence  of  any  kind,  except 
the  force  of  reason  and  the  power  of  truth.  It  is  to  be  done,  if  at  all,  at 
the  ballot-box.'  " 

In  all  this  I  am  quoted  correctly  enough.  But  the  next 
sentence  is  as  follows : 

"  In  another  place  he  speaks  of  '  the  Sovereign  Right  of  Secession  as 
the  only  check  and  barrier  against  the  usurpation  of  undelegated  power 
on  the  part  of  the  General  Government.' " 

The  comments  then  go  on,  with  a  great  deal  of  misplaced 
rhetoric,  to  demolish  this  position,  which  is  his  own,  and  not 
mine ;  or  at  least  one  which  he  assigns  to  me,  but  which  I 
never  assumed.  No  such  utterance  emanated  from  me.  AVhat 
I  did  say  was  this  : 

"  If  the  facts  of  our  history  be  as  set  forth  in  the  volume  referred  to, 
(and  the  world  is  challenged  to  disprove  them,)  then  the  conclusions  to 


MB.   STEPHENS'  SUR-KEJOINDEK.  55 

which  they  lead  are  inevitable,  even  though  they  lead  to  a  complete  justi 
fication  of  the  sovereign  right  of  secession,  as  the  only  sure  check  and 
barrier  against  the  usurpation  of  undelegated  power  on  the  part  of  the 
General  Government." 

The  sentence  immediately  preceding  is  in  these  words:  "Of 
course  I  speak  of  matters  ante  helium." 

The  proposition,  therefore,  as  stated  by  me,  even  Judge 
Nicholas,  if  he  will  study  it  closely,  will,  as  a  logician,  hardly 
venture  to  deny. 

As  an  investigator  of  truth,  if  he  had  been  inclined  to  avoid 
the  conclusion,  (as  matters  stood  ante  ~belluin,  of  course,)  he 
would  have  seen  that  this  could  only  be  done  by  a  successful 
attack  upon  the  facts ;  and  not  by  resorting  to  the  expedient  of 
severing  the  sentence,  and  even  distorting  the  conclusion,  as  it 
appears  in  its  proper  connection. 

Secession,  before  the  war,  was  regarded  by  many  of  the 
ablest  men  at  the  South — men  whose  patriotism  is  unquestion 
able — as  the  only  sure  check  and  barrier  in  the  last  resort 
against  usurpations  of  undelegated  power ;  but,  since  its  trial, 
not  one  is  to  be  found  who  considers  it  a  practical  remedy  for 
Federal  wrongs  of  any  sort.  I  therefore  distinctly  stated  in 
another,  and  in  the  after  part  of  the  letter,  that  this  remedy, 
however  rightful  under  the  system  it  might  be,  had  been  aban 
doned.  This  clearly  appears  from  his  own  quotations  from  the 
letter ;  but  it  does  not  appear  from  those  quotations,  as  they 
stand  in  his  response,  that  it  was  in  the  after  part  of  the  letter, 
when  I  was  speaking  of  matters  as  they  stand  since  the  war. 

When  I  stated  that  Secession  had  been  abandoned  by  the  peo 
ple  of  the  Southern  States,  I  meant  all  that  I  said,  and  uttered 
nothing  but  the  truth.  Its  abandonment  was  accepted  in  good 
faith  as  one  of  the  results  of  the  war.  It  is  no  longer  looked 
to,  in  any  contingency,  as  a  practical  remedy  or  check  against 
any  usurpations  or  abuses  of  power  on  the  part  of  the  Federal 
Government.  This  abandonment  on  their  part  has  been  mani 
fested  in  every  form  in  which  public  as  well  as  private  honor 
can  be  pledged.  All  the  States  in  their  conventions  have,  with 
out  equivocation,  given  it  an  emphatic  abandonment.  Even  the 
Southern  Generals,  in  the  New  York  Convention,  last  year,  to 


56  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

whom  sucli  an  unkind  allusion  is  made  by  Judge  Nicholas,  gave 
their  pledged  honor  to  this  abandonment  by  unanimously  sus 
taining  the  platform  of  principles  then  announced.  Whether 
they  were  "  unpardoned "  or  not,  their  individual  honor  and 
integrity  as  men  were  certainly  untarnished  and  unsullied,  far 
beyond  the  reach  of  all  impeachment  or  reproach.  This  fling 
of  Judge  Nicholas  at  the  Southern  Generals  was,  as  it  seems  to 
me,  no  less  unkind  than  unjust.  Why  he  should  have  applied 
to  them  the  epithet  of  "  unpardoned,"  I  know  not ;  for,  if  I  am 
correct  in  my  recollection,  the  imputation  is  utterly  without 
foundation  in  fact. 

No  utterance  of  mine,  therefore,  presents  to  the  people  of 
the  North  'or  South  the  question  of  Secession  as  a  living  issue. 
This  is  but  the  work  of  the  imagination  on  the  part  of  Judge 
Nicholas.  I  opposed  it  as  an  expedient  remedy  at  the  time  it 
was  resorted  to,  though  I  believed  it  to  be  a  rightful  one.  And 
though  I  believe  it  to  be  a  rightful  one,  I  did  not  believe  it  to 
be  the  only  one,  much  less  the  surest  or  the  lest  one.  I  then 
thought,  and  still  think,  that  there  were  other  remedies  much 
more  practicable  and  expedient.  Among  these  were  appeals  to 
the  good  sense,  virtue,  intelligence,  and  patriotism  of  the  peo 
ple  of  the  several  States,  and  earnest  invocations  to  them  to 
adhere  to  the  principles  of  the  Constitution,  as  the  palladium 
of  the  common  rights  and  interests  of  us  all.  The  utterances 
now  complained  of  are  but  appeals  and  invocations  of  this  char 
acter. 

Representative  Governments  under  no  form  can  be  main 
tained  by  any  people  long  who  have  not  the  intelligence  to  un 
derstand,  the  patriotism  to  approve,  the  virtue  to  maintain  in 
violate  its  forms  and  principles  as  established.  In  arriving  at  a 
correct  knowledge  of  these,  under  our  complex  system,  which 
the  people  must  do  if  they  would  preserve  their  free  institutions 
under  it,  there  is  no  necessity  for  a  resort  to  "  political  meta 
physics,"  as  Judge  Nicholas  intimates,  or  metaphysics  of  any 
sort.  Neither  is  it  a  question  involving  any  sort  of  abstrac 
tions.  It  is  a  question  purely  of  facts,  of  unquestioned  and 
unquestionable  historic  records.  These  clearly  show  that  it  is, 
as  I  maintain,  a  Federal  Republic — all  its  powers  being  dele- 


MR.   STEPHENS'   SUB-REJOINDER.  57 

gated,  specific,  and  limited ;  and  that  there  is  in  it  no  such  fea 
ture  or  principle  as  a  consolidated  sovereignty,  with  general  and 
unlimited  powers  in  the  Federal  head,  as  maintained  by  those 
who  have  lately  controlled  its  action,  under  their  construction, 
to  such  mischievous  and  disastrous  results.  Shall  this  abnormal 
action  of  the  Government  be  corrected  by  the  people  at  the 
ballot-box  ?  Shall  the  administration  be  brought  back  to  the 
standard  of  principles  so  generally  recognized  in  the  better  days 
of  our  history,  or  shall  it  be  permitted  to  go  on  in  its  present 
course  until  even  the  name  of  Republic  is  ignored  ? 

This  is  the  living  issue  I  presented  ! 

It  is  now  the  chief  practical  question  before  the  people  of 
the  several  States.  It  involves,  on  the  one  side,  Constitutional 
Liberty,  as  established  by  the  Fathers ;  on  the  other,  Consolida 
tion,  Absolutism,  and  Monarchy  of  some  sort  or  other.  There 
is  no  middle  ground — no  half-way  house — between  the  alterna 
tives  of  this  issue  as  above  stated.  Between  these  the  people 
must  choose.  They  must  take  one  side  or  the  other.  There 
are  but  two  great  political  principles  in  antagonism  in  this  coun 
try  at  this  time.  The  one  is  for  the  continued  maintenance  of 
free  institutions  by  popular  government ;  the  other  is  for  an 
overthrow  of  these,  and  the  establishment  of  monarchy.  The 
crown  has  already  been  paraded  for  the  fascination  of  the  un 
reflecting  multitude,  with  its  guileful  promises  as  to  the  nature 
and  character  of  that  peace  which  empire  will  bring ! 

It  is  quite  immaterial,  therefore,  whether  five  hundred  men 
at  the  North  can  be  found  who  will  concede  what  Judge  Nich 
olas  so  emphatically  denies  that  they  would  or  not.  No  such 
issue  as  he  represents  was  presented  to  them  by  me.  But,  to 
come  to  real,  practical  considerations,  is  it  true  that  five  hun 
dred  men  at  the  North  cannot  be  found  who  will  sustain  the 
nature  and  character  of  our  Government  as  expounded  by  the 
Fathers ;  and  under  whose  administration  of  it,  according  to 
the  principles  enunciated  by  them,  the  country  grew  and  pros 
pered  for  sixty  years  as  no  other  country  ever  did  before  ?  Is 
it  true  that  five  hundred  men  cannot  be  found  there  to  main 
tain  its  complex  character  as  declared  by  Washington,  and  ex 
pounded  by  Jefferson,  Madison,  and  Monroe,  to  say  nothing  of 


58  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

others  ?  Is  it  true  that  five  hundred  men  cannot  be  found 
throughout  the  Northern  States  to  endorse  the  following  senti 
ments  and  earnest  utterances  of  General  Jackson,  upon  the 
same  subject,  in  his  Farewell  Address  to  the  people  of  the 
United  States : 

"  It  is  well  known  that  there  have  always  been  those  among  us  who 
wish  to  enlarge  the  powers  of  the  General  Government ;  and  experience 
would  seem  to  indicate  that  there  is  a  tendency  on  the  part  of  this  Gov 
ernment  to  overstep  the  boundaries  marked  out  for  it  by  the  Constitution. 
Its  legitimate  authority  is  abundantly  sufficient  for  all  the  purposes  for 
which  it  was  created ;  and,  its  powers  being  expressly  enumerated,  there  can 
be  no  justification  for  claiming  any  thing  beyond  them.  Every  attempt 
to  exercise  power  beyond  these  limits  should  be  promptly  and  firmly  op 
posed,  for  one  evil  example  will  lead  to  other  measures  still  more  mischiev 
ous;  and,  if  the  principle  of  constructive  powers,  or  supposed  advan 
tages,  or  temporary  circumstances,  shall  ever  be  permitted  to  justify  the 
assumption  of  a  power  not  given  by  the  Constitution,  the  General  Govern 
ment  will,  before  long,  absorb  all  the  powers  of  legislation,  and  you  will 
have,  in  effect,  but  one  consolidated  government.  From  'the  txtent  of  our 
country,  its  diversified  interests,  different  pursuits,  and  different  habits,  it 
is  too  obvious  for  argument  that  a  single  consolidated  government  would  be 
wholly  inadequate  to  watch  over  and  protect  its  interests ;  and  every 
friend  of  our  free  institutions  should  be  always  prepared  to  maintain, 
unimpaired  and  in  full  vigor,  the  rights  and  sovereignty  of  the  States,  and 
to  confine  the  action  of  the  General  Government  strictly  to  the  sphere  of  its 
appropriate  duties." 

V., 

General  Jackson  was  in  no  way  tainted  with  "  the  pernicious 
dogma  of  Secession,"  as  I  suppose  Judge  Nicholas  will  readily 
admit,  whatever  he  may  think  of  Mr.  Jefferson  and  the  Ken 
tucky  resolutions  of  1798.  Are  my  utterances  at  all  inconsist 
ent  with  the  utterances  of  General  Jackson's  solemn  warnings, 
even  touching  the  sovereignty  of  the  several  States  ? 

The  hint  of  Judge  Nicholas  as  to  the  propriety  and  expe 
diency  of  such  utterances  coming  from  me  is  duly  considered 
and  properly  appreciated ;  but,  in  reply  to  all  he  has  said  on 
that  point,  I  have  this  to  say  to  him  :  If  I  were  a  prisoner,  and 
under  arrest,  with  no  hope  of  "pardon"  I  should  not  feel  re 
lieved  from  my  sense  of  high  moral  obligation,  to  give,  though 
unasked,  counsel  of  safety,  if  I  thought  it  important,  even  to 


MR.  STEPHENS'  SUE-REJOINDER.  59 

my  captors  and  accusers  in  a  time  of  imminent  danger,  whether 
it  was  heeded  or  not. 

Paul,  while  in  custody  as  a  rebel,  so-called,  on  his  way  to  the 
judgment-seat  of  Caesar,  did  not  hesitate  to  give  warning  for 
the  safety  of  those  who  had  him  in  charge,  as  well  as  for  the 
ship  on  which  they  were  all  embarked.  Had  his  admonition 
been  heeded,  a  wreck  might  have  been  avoided,  and  notwith 
standing  "  the  Centurion  believed  the  master  and  owner  of  the 
ship  more  than  these  things  which  were  spoken  by  Paul,"  and 
went  on  in  their  course  heedless  of  his  warning ;  yet  no  sense 
of  its  impropriety  kept  him  from  again  standing  "  forth  in  their 
midst"  when  all  hope  of  the  ship's  safety  was  gone,  and  warn 
ing  them  once  more  how  only  their  lives  could  be  saved.  This 
time  his  advice  was  taken,  and  the  whole  crew  were  saved, 
though  the  ship  was  lost.  Neither  shall  I  abstain,  in  a  case 
where  imminent  dangers  of  much  greater  magnitude  threaten — 
where  not  only  the  future  destiny  of  the  whole  country,  with 
its  liberties,  but  with  these  the  surest  hopes  of  mankind,  are 
jeoparded — from  uttering  words  of  admonition  and  warning, 
however  unseemly,  improper,  or  even  impertinent  they  may  be 
deemed  to  be  by  Judge  Nicholas,  or  ever  so  many  other  equally 
clever  and  equally  well-meaning  people. 

In  conclusion,  and  in  taking  my  leave  of  Judge  Nicholas, 
unless  it  becomes  necessary  again  to  make  other  corrections  of 
matters  wherein  he  may  speak  of  me,  etc.,  I  will  barely  add, 
(with  thanks  to  yon  for  the  courtesy  of  the  use  of  your  col 
umns,  which  I  trust  I  have  not  abused),  that  if  it  be  true  that 
what  I  really  said  in  the  former  communication,  and  not  what 
he  attributes  to  me,  will  have  the  effect  of  doing  injury  at  the 
North  or  South,  as  he  intimates,  it  only  shows  the  hopelessness 
of  our  condition,  and  the  inevitableness  of  the  common  doom 
of  the  liberties  of  both  sections.  The  liberties  of  the  North 
cannot  long  survive  the  loss  of  those  of  the  South ;  and  if  I  had 
supposed  the  condition  of  the  Northern  mind  was  as  it  might 
be  inferred  to  be  from  his  representations  of  it,  I  certainly 
should  not  have  made  any  such  utterances  as  I  did.  I  should 
have  refrained  from  making  them,  however,  from  no  such  sense 
of  the  impropriety  in  my  doing  it  as  he  intimates ;  but  I  should 


60  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

have  been  governed  in  withholding  them  entirely  by  those 
promptings  of  humanity  which  not  only  debar  all  excitements, 
but  rigidly  forbid  the  slightest  unguarded  movement,  or  even 
an  audible  whisper,  that  may  possibly  disturb  the  quiet  repose 
of  a  dying  friend — one  in  extremis,  in  articulo  mortis,  past  all 
power  of  reaction,  all  effort,  all  remedy,  all  hope. 

How  this  really  is,  the  developments  of  the  future  will  de 
termine.  What  I  have  said,  however,  is  upon  record ;  and 
Judge  Nicholas,  you,  and  the  country  may  be  assured  that 
these  developments  will  bring  with  them  the  realization  of  the 
fact  that  these  utterances  will  remain  forever  as  living  truths. 
Yery  respectfully, 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 


AETICLE  III. 

THE  CURTIS  CONTROVERSY  ON  MR.  WEBSTER'S  MODIFIED  VIEWS. 
I.  —  HON.  GEOEGE  T.  CUKTIS'  REVIEW  OF  TIIE 


A  CONSTITUTIONAL  VIEW  OF  THE  LATE  WAR  BETWEEN  THE  STATES: 
Its  Causes,  Character,  Conduct,  and  Results.  Presented  in  a  Series  of  Collo 
quies  at  Liberty  Hall.  By  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  In  two  vols.  Vol.  1. 

THE  author  of  the  book,  the  title  of  which  is  placed  at  the 
head  of  this  article,  is  one  of  the  representatives  of  a  lost  and 
ruined  cause.  In  that  cause  he  has  suffered;  suffered  with 
heroic  fidelity  to  an  idea  respecting  the  nature  of  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States.  He  is  a  gentleman  for  whose  pa 
triotism  and  purity  of  purpose  I  entertain  entire  respect.  I 
could  not,  however  prompted,  treat  otherwise  than  with  ten 
derness,  those  whom  the  dread  arbitrament  of  civil  war  has 
stricken  down,  and  whom  I  believe  to  have  been  conscientious 
in  their  efforts  to  establish  the  Southern  Confederacy.  I 
learned  long  ago  to  regard  the  question  of  the  right  of  State 
secession  from  the  Union  as  one  on  which  men  could  honestly 
differ  from  the  views  that  have  generally  prevailed  in  the 
North  ;  and  now  that  the  doctrine  has  been,  after  every  form 
of  forensic  discussion,  rendered  practically  obsolete  by  the  ter 
rible  trial  of  arms,  I  shall  be,  I  trust,  the  last  person  in  the 
land  to  utter  a  word  with  intent  to  injure  the  feelings  of  those 
who  stand  on  the  lost  side  of  this  great  National  controversy. 
But  I  may  be  permitted  to  express  the  astonishment  with  which 
I  have  read  a  portion  of  Mr.  Stephens'  recent  publication,  in 
which  he  claims  that  Mr.  Webster,  in  the  later  years  of  his  life, 
changed  his  opinions  respecting  the  nature  of  the  Constitution, 
and  became  a  convert,  or  almost  a  convert,  to  the  views  of 


62  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

State  sovereignty,  on  which  the  right  of  State  secession  from 
the  Union  was  claimed  by  Mr.  Calhoun  and  liis  disciples  as  a 
right  under  the  Constitution.  This  suggestion,  I  venture  to 
say,  is  a  very  novel  one  to  Mr.  Webster's  personal  friends  in 
this  part  of  the  country.  Considering  the  source  from  which 
it  comes,  and  the  manner  in  which  it  has  been  put  forth,  it 
claims  their  attention.  It  ought  to  be  answered  by  some  one. 
There  is  no  living  representative  of  Mr.  Webster's  blood  of  an 
age  to  undertake  this  duty.  Of  his  four  literary  executors, 
to  whom  he  confided  the  care  of  his  name  and  fame  by 
testamentary  and  other  injunctions,  two  alone  survive.  Of 
these  I  am  one ;  and  circumstances  which  I  need  not  detail, 
have  devolved  it  upon  me  to  examine  Mr.  Stephens'  proofs,  and 
to  submit  to  the  public  tl;e  proper  refutation  of  his  position  in 
regard  to  Mr.  Webster. 

Let  it  be  observed,  however,  that  I  enter  into  no  vindication 
of  Mr.  Webster's  opinions  as  they  were  expressed  in  1830-'33, 
and  as  they  have  always  been  understood  in  this  region  to  have 
been  held  to  the  day  of  his  death.  I  make  no  issue  with  Mr. 
Stephens  or  any  one  else  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  doctrine 
which  has,  until  now,  been  regarded  as  the  doctrine  of  Mr. 
Webster,  although  I  never  was  able  to  see  how  the  opposite 
doctrine  is  consistent  with  the  facts  respecting  the  establishment 
of  the  Constitution  and  its  unquestionable  language.  But 
with  the  main  purpose  of  Mr.  Stephens'  book  I  have  now 
nothing  to  do.  In  that  book  he  has  put  forth  the  assertion 
that  Mr.  Webster  changed  his  opinions ;  and,  if  this  is  true, 
Mr.  Webster  is  really  to  be  cited  as  an  authority  for  the  sup 
posed  right  of  State  secession.  This  assertion,  and  the 
proofs  on  which  it  is  made,  I  propose  to  examine,  and  nothing 
else. 

That  I  may  do  no  injustice  to  Mr.  Stephens'  assertion,  I 
proceed  to  quote  his  words.  Speaking  of  the  debate  in  1833, 
in  which  he  thinks  Mr.  Calhoun  not  only  annihilated  Mr.  Web 
ster,  but  convinced  him  that  he  had  been  wrong  in  1830,  Mr. 
Stephens  observes  (p.  387)  : 

"  The  power  and  force  of  this  speech  (Mr.  Calhoun's)  must  have  been 
felt  by  Mr.  Webster  himself.  He  was  a  man  of  too  much  reason  and  logic 


MR.  CURTIS'  REVIEW.  63 

not  to  have  felt  it.  This  opinion  I  ani  more  inclined  to  from  the  fact  that 
he  not  only  did  not  attempt  a  general  reply  to  it  at  the  time,  but  from  the 
further  fact  that  in  after-life  he  certainly,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  greatly 
modified  the  opinions  held  by  him  in  that  debate." 

In  the  next  chapter,  Mr.  Stephens'  interlocutor  having  called 
for  proofs,  he  proceeds  to  give  them.  He  then  (p.  405)  after 
citing,  as  the  latest  evidence,  a  speech  made  by  Mr.  Webster  in 
1851,  observes  : 

u  That  this  speech  shows  a  modification  of  the  opinions  expressed  in 
his  speech  of  1833,  must  be  admitted  by  all.  He  had  grown  older  and 
wiser.  The  speech  of  1851  was  in  his  maturcr  years,  after  the  nature  of  the 
Government  had  been  more  fully  discussed  by  the  men  of  his  own  genera 
tion  than  it  had  been  in  1830  and  1833.  He  was  too  great  a  man,  and  had 
too  great  an  intellect,  not  to  see  the  truth  when  it  was  presented,  and  he 
was  too  honest  and  too  patriotic  a  man  not  to  proclaim  a  truth  when  he 
saw  it,  even  to  an  unwilling  people." 

The  proofs  on  which,  Mr.  Stephens  relies,  to  show  that  Mr. 
"Webster  in  1851  had  reversed  the  opinions  of  his  whole  pre 
vious  life,  and  had  come  to  hold  the  Constitution  to  be  a  "  com 
pact  between  Sovereign  States,"  will  be  fully  stated  here 
after.  Before  examining  them,  however,  it  will  occur,  perhaps, 
to  the  reader  to  ask  how  it  happens  that  Mr.  Webster  should 
have  reached  a  change  of  opinion  so  extraordinary  as  to  amount 
to  a  total  renunciation  of  that  which  constituted  the  chief  glory 
of  his  own  great  fame,  and  yet  should  have  given  to  his  coun 
trymen  no  more  distinct  notice  that  he  had  done  so  than  is  to 
be  gained  from  the  evidence  on  which  Mr.  Stephens  relies.  It 
will  certainly  be  admitted  to  be  true  that  he  thought  himself 
right  in  1830,  in  the  celebrated  controversy  with  Mr.  Hayne. 
But  this  is  not  all.  It  is  likewise  true  that  the  views  he  then 
maintained  respecting  the  nature  of  the  Constitution  were 
accepted  by  a  large  majority  of  the  nation,  of  all  parties,  as  a 
true  exposition,  and  that  they  were  adopted  by  General  Jack 
son's  administration  as  the  basis  of  its  action  when  it  became 
necessary  afterwards  to  resist  the  threatened  Nullification  in 
South  Carolina.  General  Jackson's  proclamation  of  1832 
against  the  Nullifiers  was  written  by  his  Secretary  of  State, 
Edward  Livingston,  and  it  followed,  throughout,  the  doctrine 


64  THE  EEVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

maintained  by  Mr.  Webster  in  his  reply  to  Hayne,  in  1830.  So 
remarkable  was  this  adoption  of  Mr.  Webster's  argument,  that 
popular  opinion  at  that  time  regarded  it  as  a  manifest,  but,  of 
course,  a  very  excusable  plagiarism.  Mr.  Webster,  when  the 
proclamation  was  issued,  was  on  his  way  to  Washington, 
ignorant  of  what  had  occurred.  At  an  inn  in  New  Jersey  he 
met  a  traveller  just  from  Washington.  Neither  of  them  was 
known  to  the  other.  Mr.  Webster  inquired  the  news.  "  Sir," 
said  the  gentleman,  "  the  President  has  issued  a  proclamation 
against  the  Nullifiers,  taken  entirely  from  Mr.  Webster's  reply 
to  Hayne."  In  the  course  of  the  ensuing  session,  and  not  long 
after  Mr.  Webster  reached  the  Capital,  it  became  necessary  for 
the  administration  to  act.  Mr.  Webster  was  in  the  opposition  ; 
and,  excepting  in  regard  to  the  integrity  of  the  Union  and  the 
just  powers  of  the  Government,  there  was  a  wide  gulf  between 
the  administration  and  him.  He  was  absent  from  his  seat  for 
several  days  when  the  Force  bill  was  about  to  be  introduced  as 
an  administration  measure.  A  portion  of  General  Jackson's 
original  supporters  hung  back  from  that  issue.  At  this  juncture 
there  was  much  inquiring  among  the  President's  friends  in  the 
House  as  to  "  where  Mr.  Webster  was."  At  length  a  member 
of  General  Jackson's  cabinet  went  to  Mr.  Webster's  rooms,  told 
him  the  nature  of  the  bill  about  to  be  introduced,  and  asked 
him,  as  a  public  duty,  to  go  into  the  Senate  and  defend  the  bill 
and  the  President.  It  is  well  known  to  the  whole  country  that 
Mr.  Webster  did  so ;  and  it  is  known  to  me  that  General  Jack 
son  personally  thanked  him  for  his  powerful  aid ;  that  many  of 
the  President's  best  friends  afterwards  sought  to  make  a  union 
between  him  and  Mr.  Webster,  and  that  nothing  continued  to 
separate  them  but  an  irreconcilable  difference  of  opinion  about 
the  questions  relating  to  the  currency. 

It  is,  in  fact,  matter  of  historical  certainty  that  Mr.  Web 
ster's  opinions  respecting  the  character  of  the  Constitution,  as 
maintained  in  1830,  shaped  the  course  of  the  Government 
towards  Nullification;  that  they  shaped  the  opinion  of  the 
country  which  rallied  to  the  support  of  the  administration  ;  that 
he  himself,  through  his  whole  life,  regarded  his  reply  to  Hayne 
as  the  most  important  of  all  his  public  efforts  ;  and  that  it  was 


ME.   CURTIS'  REVIEW.  65 

the  one  that  produced  the  widest  and  most  enduring  impression 
upon  the  National  intellect.  "Whether  he  was  right  or  wrong, 
it  is  to  him  that  we  are  to  trace  that  great  body  of  public  con 
victions  which,  ten  years  after  he  was  laid  in  the  tomb,  enabled 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  draw  forth  the  energies 
of  a  people  who  wrould  never  have  gone  through  the  late  civil 
war  without  those  convictions,  and  finally  to  prevent  the  threat 
ened  disruption  of  the  United  States.  Mr.  "Webster  was  not 
compelled  to  witness  this  sad  spectacle ;  but  he  foresaw  the  pos 
sibility  of  its  occurrence ;  and  he  knew  well  that,  if  the  issue  did 
come  in  this  terrible  form,  he  had  prepared  the  intellect  of  his 
country  with  that  which  could  alone  justify  and  support  the 
efforts  that  must  be  made.  He  knew  always  that  his  own  fame 
was  completely  identified  with  the  doctrine  that  regards  the 
Constitution  not  as  compact  but  as  a  law  ;  that  in  that  great  pos 
tulate  he  had  lived  and  acted  until  he  had  made  it  plain  to  all 
but  the  people  of  a  section  ;  and  that,  if  this  opinion  were  to  be 
renounced  by  him,  it  would  be  his  clear  duty  to  make  that  re 
nunciation  known  in  the  most  unequivocal  terms.  All  this 
every  man  knows,  too,  who  knows  much  of  the  history  and 
feelings  of  Daniel  Webster.  Yet  we  are  told  that,  in  his-  "  ma- 
turer  years,"  he  changed  his  opinions  on  this  subject.  Why, 
then,  did  he  not  say  that  he  had  changed  ?  Mr.  Stephens  gives 
him  credit  for  moral  grandeur  of  character.  The  credit  is  his 
due.  He  was  never  afraid  of  admitting  that  he  had  modified 
his  opinions.  His  love  of  truth  was  more  powerful  than  his 
love  of  himself.  But  I  think  I  can  tell  Mr.  Stephens  why  he 
did  not  inform  us  that  he  had  changed .  these  opinions.  The 
reason  is  because  he  had  not  changed  them' ;  because  they  were 
inseparable  from  the  very  structure  of  his  intellect,  and  there 
fore  could  not  be  renounced.  He  who  wishes  to  see  whether 
this  is  true,  must  compare  the  intellectual  natures  and  mental 
characteristics  of  the  two  great  antagonists,  "Webster  and  Cal- 
houn,  and  must  observe  how  their  respective  modes  of  reasoning 
led  to  conclusions  diametrically  opposite. 

Mr.  Stephens  speaks  of  a  change  that  came  over  Mr.  Web 
ster  in  his  "  maturer  years."     In  1830,  when  he  electrified  the 
country  by  his  reply  to  Hayne,  he  was  forty-eight  years  of  age. 
5 


C6  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

In  1833,  when  the  debate  with  Mr.  Calhoun  occurred,  he  was 
fifty-one.  In  1851,  when  Mr.  Stephens  thinks  him  more  "  ma 
ture,"  and  the  subject  had  been  "  more  fully  discussed,"  he  was 
siity-ninc.  He  died  on  the  24th  of  October,  1852,  in  his 
seventy-first  year. 

I  am  not  aware  that  at  any  period  of  his  life,  Mr.  Webster 
exhibited  any  material  abatement  of  his  intellectual  powers.  In 
the  judgment  of  those  who  saw  him  most  frequently  and  ob 
served  him  most  closely,  there  wras  less  change  in  him  from  the 
age  of  fifty  to  the  age  of  seventy  than  is  common  in  men  of 
intellectual  pursuits.  He  himself  was  sometimes  observed, 
during  the  last  ten  years  of  his  life,  when  called  upon  to  make 
some  particular  and  unusual  effort,  to  be  a  little  anxious  con 
cerning  the  comparisons  that  men  might  make  of  him  with 
what  he  had  formerly  been.  No  one,  however,  would  say  that 
the  speech  of  the  7th  March,  1850,  exhibits  any  decay  of  intel 
lectual  strength,  or  that  the  famous  "  Hulsemann  letter  "  is  less 
vigorous  than  any  of  his  former  productions. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  we  were  to  look  for  the  period  when 
his  powers  of  all  kinds  were  in  their  fullest  vigor  and  highest 
development,  we  should  unhesitatingly  place  it,  in  his  case,  as 
in  that  of  most  men,  between  the  ages  of  forty  and  sixty.  Mr. 
Stephens  makes  a  great  mistake,  too,  as  it  seems  to  me,  in 
supposing  that  the  nature  of  the  Government  had  been  more 
fully  discussed  after  1833,  and  before  1851,  than  it  had  been 
down  to  the  time  when  Nullification  was  encountered.  Noth 
ing  of  any  importance  had  been  added  to  the  Southern  side  of 
the  controversy  after  1833,  nor  lias  there  been  any  thing  new- 
said  or  written  on  that  side  of  the  question  since  Mr.  Hayne 
and  Mr.  Calhoun  left  it  in  their  arguments  of  1830  and  1833. 
If  Mr.  Webster  ever  thought  that  he  had  occasion  to  revise  the 
subject,  he  certainly  had  nothing  new  to  examine  after  1833, 
for  Mr.  Calhoun  had  then  exhausted  his  own  side  of  the  ques 
tion,  in  one  of  the  greatest  arguments  he  ever  made,  and  all 
that  he  ever  said  afterwards  was  but  a  repetition  of  himself. 
Moreover,  it  would  be  an  error  to  imagine  that  Mr.  Webster, 
in  1830,  came  to  the  discussion  of  this  great  question  as  to 
something  which  he  had  not  previously  studied.  The  debate 


MR.  CURTIS'  REVIEW.  67 

itself  of  that  year  sprang  up  suddenly ;  but  Mr.  "Webster's 
preparation  for  it  had  been  made  long  before  the  occasion 
arose,  and  he  could  have  made  the  reply  to  Hayne  just  as  well 
as  he  did  make  it,  at  any  time  during  the  preceding  ten  years. 
To  him  there  was  no  side  of  this  question  that  needed  to  be  ex 
amined  when  he  was  called  upon  to  encounter  the  doctrine  of 
Nullification ;  and  the  proof  of  this  is,  that  the  second  speech 
on  Foote's  resolution  which  contains  the  development  of  his 
doctrine  respecting  the  nature  of  the  Government  and  his  re 
ply  to  the  whole  of  Mr.  Ilayne's  argument,  was  made  from  a 
brief  prepared  in  a  single  night.  This  brief,  covering  but  a 
few  pages  of  ordinary  letter  j^per,  is  now  in  my  possession. 

There  is,  too,  a  singular  error  of  Mr.  Stephens  on  which  I 
desire  to  make  a  few  observations  before  I  quote  his  proofs  of 
Mr.  Webster's  change  of  opinions.  He  seems  to  imagine  that 
Mr.  "Webster  was  staggered  even  in  1833,  and  begun  then  to 
•entertain  doubts,  in  consequence  of  the  "  crushing  and  extin 
guishing  "  speech  of  Mr.  Calhoun.  He  says,  without  hesita 
tion,  that  Mr.  Webster  made  "  no  rejoinder "  to  Mr.  Calhoun, 
but  merely  explained  how  he  had  used  the  term  "  constitutional 
compact "  in  1830,  and  attempted  to  parry  one  or  two  of  the 
blows  "  l)ut  never  made  any  set  reply  or  rejoinder."  "  Mr.  Cal 
houn  stood  master  of  the  arena  "  (p.  387).  Now  the  facts  are 
these : 

The  autumn  of  1832  and  the  winter  of  1833  witnessed  the 
crisis  of  "Nullification."  The  revenue  laws  of  the  United 
States  had  been  prostrated  in  South  Carolina  by  a  system  of 
State  law  which  directly  obstructed  •  the  collection  of  any 
revenue  whatever.  It  had  become  necessary  for  tlie  President 
of  the  United  States  to  act ;  and  that  President  was  Andrew 
Jackson.  His  proclamation  warned  the  nullifiers  that  their 
acts  were  acts  of  "  treason ;  "  and  when  Congress  assembled  in 
December,  he  asked  for  the  passage  of  a  law  adapted  to  the 
exigency,  to  enable  him  to  enforce  the  collection  of  the  revenue. 
It  became  known,  very  soon,  that  Mr.  Webster  intended  to 
support  the  President  in  this  course,  notwithstanding  their 
political  differences  on  almost  all  other  subjects.  Mr.  Calhoun 
saw  what  was  impending,  and  after  the  introduction  of  the 


68  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

Force  bill  he  offered  in  the  Senate  what  he  called  a  "  plea  in 
bar,"  consisting  of  his  celebrated  resolutions  on  the  nature  of 
the  Union,  embodying,  in  very  terse  and  perspicuous  language, 
the  doctrine  of  the  right  of  Nullification  as  a  constitutional 
remedy.  On  the  llth  of  February,  Mr.  Clay  announced  in  the 
Senate  his  purpose  to  introduce  his  Compromise  bill  to  modify 
the  tariff.  This  bill  was  introduced  and  was  pending  at  the 
same  time  with  the  Force  bill.  On  the  15th  of  February,  the 
Force  bill  being  under  consideration,  Mr.  Calhoun  commenced 
the  great  speech  in  which  he  resisted  the  passage  of  that  bill, 
developed  his  views  on  the  nature  of  the  Constitution  and  the 
right  of  State  Nullification,  as4  embodied  in  his  resolutions, 
and  explained  the  attitude  taken  by  South  Carolina.  The 
doctrine  of  this  very  able  speech  maintained  the  Union  to  be  a 
confederacy  of  sovereign  States,  in  contradistinction  to  a  con 
solidated  government.  Its  argument  was  that  the  States, 
being  sovereign  and  having  reserved  to  themselves  all  powers 
not  granted  to  the  general  government,  had  reserved,  among 
others,  the  power  of  judging  of  any  infractions  of  the  "  Fed- 
erM  compact ; "  which  power,  from  the  necessity  of  the  case, 
Mr.  Calhoun  said  could  exist  nowhere  else.  He  maintained, 
therefore,  that  when  a  State,  in  its  sovereign  capacity,  has 
solemnly  pronounced  an  act  of  Congress  to  be  unwarranted  by 
the  Federal  Constitution,  the  paramount  allegiance  of  her  citi 
zens  is  due  to  her  authority,  and  she  stands  between  the  citi 
zen  and  the  State  to  protect  him  from  the  consequence  of  re 
sistance.  As  an  exposition  of  the  doctrines  of  nullification, 
this  speech  was  a  much  abler  one  than  that  of  Mr.  Hayne, 
which  Mr.  Webster  answered  in  1830.  But  let  it  be  observed 
that  this  is  not  the  speech  which  Mr.  Stephens  thinks  annihi 
lated  Mr.  Webster,  and  to  which  the  latter  "made  no  rejoin 
der."  It  was,  however,  a  speech  which  contained  the  develop 
ment  of  Mr.  Calhoun's  whole  doctrine,  and  it  was  the  one 
which  Mr.  Webster  answered  as  soon  as  Mr.  Calhoun  had  con 
cluded.  The  answer  stands  in  the  third  volume  of  Mr.  Web 
ster's  works  under  the  title  "  The  Constitution  not  a  compact 
between  sovereign  States."  It  comprehended  and  maintained 
the  following  propositions : 


MR.   CURTIS'  REVIEW.  69 

1.  That  the   Constitution   of  the  United   States  is  not  a 
league,  confederacy,  or  compact  between  the  people  of  the  sev 
eral  States  in  their  sovereign  capacities;   but  a  government 
proper,  founded  on  the  adoption  of  the  people,  and  creating 
direct  relations  between  itself  and  individuals. 

2.  That  no  State  authority  has  power  to  dissolve  these  rela 
tions  ;    that  nothing  can  dissolve  them  but  revolution ;   and 
that,  consequently,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  secession 
without  revolution. 

3.  That  there  is  a  supreme  law,  consisting  of  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States,  and  acts  of  Congress  passed  in  pur 
suance  of  it,  and  treaties ;  and  that,  in  cases  not  capable  of  as 
suming  the  character  of  a  suit  in  law  or  equity,  Congress  must 
judge  of,  and  finally  interpret,  this  supreme  law  so  often  as  it 
has  occasion  to  pass  acts  of  legislation ;  and  in  cases  capable  of 
assuming,  a>n$  actually  assuming,  the  character  of  a  suit,  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  is  the  final  interpreter. 

4.  That  an  attempt  by  a  State  to  abrogate,  annul,  or  nullify 
an  act  of  Congress,  or  to  arrest  its  operation  within  her  limits, 
is  a  direct  usurpation  on  the  just  powers  of  the  general  gov 
ernment,  and  on  the  equal  rights  of  other  States ;  a  plain  vio 
lation  of  the  Constitution,  and  a  proceeding  essentially  revolu 
tionary  in  its  character  and  tendency. 

On  the  26th  of  February,  Mr.  Calhoun  called  up  his  own 
resolutions,  and  commenced  an  elaborate  reply  to  Mr.  "Web 
ster,  reasserting  the  doctrines  of  State  nullification.  Whoever 
will  examine  this  speech  and  compare  it  with  that  which  Mr. 
Calhoun  made  on  the  15th,  will  see  that  although  the  two  are 
of  about  equal  length,  the  latter  one  advanced  little  in  the  way 
of  argument  which  is  not  contained  in  the  former,  to  which  Mr. 
Webster  had  already  replied.  By  this  time  the  discussion 
turned  in  a  considerable  degree  on  the  sense  in  which  the 
speakers  had  used  certain  terms :  and  although  Mr.  Calhoun 
reasserted  his  own  argument  at  length,  he  in  fact  added  to  it 
nothing  that  was  important,  although  he  restated  it  in  a  very 
clear,  perspicuous,  and  logical  method.  If  Mr.  Webster  was, 
or  ought  to  have  been  "  annihilated,"  or  "  convinced,"  those 
conditions  ought  to  have  happened  to  him  after  hearing  Mr. 


70  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

Calhoun's  speech  of  the  15th.  But  Mr.  Webster's  answer  to 
that  speech — made  immediately,  it  is  true — does  not  read  as  if 
he  had  been  impressed  with  the  soundness  of  Mr.  Calhoun's 
views,  and  his  rejoinder  to  Mr.  Calhoun's  speech  of  the  26th 
shows  quite  plainly  that,  in  his  own  judgment^  ho  was  then 
called  upon  to  say  but  little  more.  That  little,  however,  he 
put  into  a  "  nutshell."  As  the  rejoinder  is  not  long,  and  as 
it  is  not  repeated  in  Mr.  Webster's  works,  I  quote  it  entire, 
that  the  reader  may  judge  whether  Mr.  Calhoun  had  convinced 
Mr.  "Webster  that  this  Union  is  a  "  compact  between  sovereign 
States." 

"  As  soon  as  Mr.  Calhoun  had  concluded,  Mr.  Webster  rose  in  reply. 
He  said  that,  haying  already  occupied  so  much  of  the  time  of  the  Senate 
on  the  general  subject,  he  should  not  do  more  than  to  make  a  very  few 
observations  in  reply  to  what  the  honorable  member  from  South  Carolina 
had  now  advanced.  *  The  gentleman',  said  Mr.  W.,  '  does  me  injustice  in 
suggesting  the  possibility  that  any  remarks  of  mine  could  have  been  made 
for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  favor  in  any  quarter,  by  an  appearance  of 
hostility  to  him.' 

"  [Mr.  Calhoun  rose  and  said  he  had  only  suggested  it  as  a  matter  of 
possibility.] 

"  '  I  hope  it  is  not  even  possible,'  continued  Mr.  "W.,  '  that  my  support  or 
opposition  of  important  measures  should  be  influenced  by  considerations 
of  that  kind.  Between  the  honorable  member  and  myself  personal  rela 
tions  have  always  been  friendly.  We  came  into  Congress  now  near  twenty 
years  ago,  both  ardent  young  men ;  and,  however  widely  we  may  have 
differed  at  any  time  on  political  subjects,  our  private  intercourse  has  been 
one  of  amity  and  kindness.' 

"  [Mr.  Calhoun  rose  and  said  these  remarks  were  just  such  as  he  him 
self  had  intended  to  make.] 

"  '  The  honorable  member  considers  my  remarks  on  his  use  of  the  phrase 
"constitutional  compact,"  as  not  well  founded,  and  says  he  has  my  own 
authority  against  myself.  He  quotes  from  my  speech  in  1830.  But  I  did 
not  on  that  or  any  occasion  call  the  Constitution  a  constitutional  com 
pact.  In  the  passage  to  which  he  refers  I  was  speaking  of  one  part  of  the 
agreement  on  which  the  Constitution  was  founded,  viz.,  the  agreement 
that  the  Slaveholding  States  should  possess  more  than  an  equal  propor 
tion  of  Representatives.  That,  I  observed,  was  matter  of  compact,  sanc 
tioned  by  the  Constitution ;  it  was  an  agreement  which,  being  adopted  in 
the  Constitution,  may  be  well  enough  called  a  constitutional  compact; 
but  that  is  not  equivalent  to  saying  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  is  nothing  but  a  constitutional  compact  between  sovereign  States. 


MR.   CURTIS'  REVIEW.  71 

The  gentleman  must  certainly  remember  that  my  main  object  on  that  oc 
casion  was  to  establish  the  proposition,  stated  in  the  same  speech,  that 
the  Constitution  was  not  a  compact  between  the  States,  but  a  constitution 
established  by  the  people,  with  a  government  founded  on  popular  elec 
tion,  and  directly  responsible  to  the  people  themselves.  The  honorable 
gentleman  attempts  also  to  find  an  authority  for  his  use  of  the  word 
"  accede."  He  says  the  same  word  was  used  by  General  Washington,  in 
speaking  of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  by  North  Carolina.  It  was 
so,  and  it  is  used  by  the  biographer  of  Washington,  also,  in  reference  to 
the  same  occurrence;  and  although  both,  probably,  adopted  the  same 
phrase  from  the  popular  language  of  the  day,  yet  the  language  in  that 
case  was  not,  perhaps,  improper.  By  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution, 
by  nine  States,  the  old  confederacy  was  effectually  dissolved.  North 
Carolina  not  having  adopted  it  until  after  the  government  went  into  op 
eration,  was  out  of  the  Union.  She  had,  at  that  moment,  no  distinct  con 
nection  with  other  States.  The  old  Union  was  broken  up,  and  she  had 
not  come  into  the  new.  There  was  propriety,  therefore,  perhaps,  in  call 
ing  her  adoption  of  the  Constitution  an  accession.  Yet,  when  she  after 
ward  adopted  the  Constitution,  she  used  the  same  terms  of  ratification  as 
the  other  States.  "Accede  "  is  unknown  to  all  those  ratifications,  and  to 
the  Constitution  itself.  But  the  honorable  gentleman  insists  that  he  can 
change  that  phraseology  of  his  resolutions,  so  as  to  avoid  my  objections, 
and  yet  maintain  their  substantial  sense  and  import.  He  says  his  first 
resolution  may  stand  thus  : ' 

"  *  Ifesolved,  That  the  people  of  the  several  States  composing  these 
United  States  are  united  as  parties  to  a  compact,  under  the  title  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  which  the  people  of  each  State  rati 
fied  as  a  separate  and  so.vereign  community,  each  binding  itself  by  its  own 
particular  ratification ;  and  that  the  Union,  of  which  the  said  compact 
is  the  bond,  is  a  union  between  the  States  ratifying  the  same.' 

"  This  is  a  change,  it  is  true,  but  it  is  a  mere  verbal  change.  It  rejects 
certain  words,  but  adopts  their  exact  synonyms.  In  his  resolution  he  calls 
the  Constitution  a  '  constitutional  compact.'  In  the  amended  form  which 
he  now  suggests,  he  calls  it  a  '  compact,  under  the  title  of  the  Constitu 
tion.'  These  are  just  the  same  thing.  Both  call  it  a  compact,  and  a 
compact  between  sovereign  communities,  and  in  both  the  attempt  is  to 
make  the  Constitution  not  one  substantive  thing,  but  merely  the  qualifica 
tion  of  something  else.  Now,  sir,  the  Constitution  does  not  call  itself  a 
compact  of  any  kind  ;  the  people  did  not  call  it  such  when  they  ratified  it. 
No  State  said  '  We,  as  a  sovereign  community,  accede  to  a  Constitutional 
compact ; '  or,  '  We,  as  a  sovereign  community,  ratify  a  compact  under 
the  title  of  a  Constitution.'  No  State  said  one  word  about  compact ;  no 
State  said  one  word  about  acting  as  a  sovereign  community.  On  the 
contrary,  in  each  and  every  State  the  language  is,  that  the  conventions, 


72  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

in  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  the  people,  ratify  this  Constitution 
or  frame  of  government.  Neither  of  the  resolutions,  therefore,  of  the 
honorable  member,  nor  this  amended  form  of  it,  follows  the  official  and 
authentic  language  applied  to  the  transaction  to  which  it  refers.  I  again 
say,  if  he  will  follow  that  language,  if  he  will  state  accurately  what  was 
done,  and  then  state  his  proposed  inference,  that  inference  will  be  out  of 
all  sight  from  his  premises.  Let  him  say  nothing  of  compact,  because  the 
people  said  nothing  of  it ;  let  him  not  assert  that  the  people  of  the  States 
acted  as  sovereign  communities,  because  they  have  not  said  so.  Let  him 
describe  what  the  people  did  in  their  own  language.  It  will  then  stand 
that  the  people  ratified  this  Constitution  or  frame  of  government. 

"Now,  sir,  the  mere  substitution  of  this  just  and  true  phraseology 
strikes  away  the  whole  foundation  of  the  gentleman's  argument.  He  can 
not  stand  a  moment  except  on  the  ground  of  a  compact  between  sovereign 
communities.  Compact,  therefore,  and  such  a  compact,  must  keep  its 
place  in  his  first  resolution,  or  else  his  chain  of  reasoning  breaks  in  the 
first  link.  He  is,  therefore,  driven  to  the  necessity  of  assuming  what  can 
not  be  proved,  and  of  giving  a  history  of  the  formation  of  this  Constitu 
tion  essentially  different  from  its  true  history.  He  is  compelled  to  re 
ject  the  language  of  the  Constitution  itself,  and  to  reject  also  the 
language  used  by  the  people  of  every  one  of  the  States  when  they 
adopted  it,  and  to  lay  the  corner-stone  of  his  whole  argument  on  mere 
assumption.  The  honorable  gentleman  does  not  understand  how  the 
Constitution  can  have  a  compact  or  consent  for  its  basis,  and  yet  not  be  a 
compact  between  sovereign  States.  It  appears  to  me  the  distinction  is 
broad  and  plain  enough.  The  people  may  agree  to  form  a  government ; 
this  is  assent,  consent,  or  compact;  this  is  the  social  compact  of  European 
writers.  When  the  government  is  formed,  it  rests  on  this  assent  of  the 
governed ;  that  is,  it  rests  on  the  assent  of  the  people.  The  whole  error 
of  the  gentleman's  argument  arises  from  the  notion  that  the  people,  of 
their  own  authority,  can  make  but  one  government,  or  that  the  people  of 
all  the  States  have  not  united,  and  cannot  unite,  in  establishing  a  Consti 
tution,  connecting  them  together  directly,  as  individuals,  united  under  one 
government.  He  seems  unwilling  to  admit,  that  while  the  people  of  a  single 
State  may  unite  together,  and  form  a  government  for  some  purposes,  the 
people  of  all  the  States  may  also  unite  together  and  form  another  govern 
ment  for  other  purposes.  But  what  he  will  not  thus  admit  appears  to  me 
to  be  the  simple  truth,  the  plain  matter  of  fact,  in  regard  to  our  political 
institutions.  The  honorable  gentleman  thinks,  sir,  that  I  overlooked  a 
very  important  part  of  the  Constitution,  favorable  to  his  side  of  the  ques 
tion.  He  says  it  is  declared  in  the  seventh  article  that  the  ratification  of 
the  conventions  of  nine  States  shall  be  sufficient  for  the  establishment  of 
the  Constitution  between  the  States  ratifying  the  same.  If  I  have  over 
looked  this  provision,  sir,  it  is  because  it  appears  to  me  not  to  have  that 
bearing  on  the  question  which  the  honorable  gentleman  supposes.  The 


MR.   CURTIS'  REVIEW.  73 

honorable  member  has  said,  in  one  of  his  publications,  that  the  word 
'  States '  as  used  in  the  Constitution,  sometimes  means  the  States,  in  their 
corporative  capacities  or  governments ;  sometimes  it  means  their  territory, 
merely;  and  sometimes  it  means  the  people  of  the  States.  This  is  very 
true ;  and  it  is  perfectly  clear,  that  in  the  clause  quoted,  the  word  means 
the  people  of  the  States.  The  same  clause  speaks  of  the  conventions  of 
States ;  that  evidently  means  conventions  of  the  people  of  the  States ;  else 
the  whole  provision  would  be  absurd.  All  that  this  part  of  the  Constitu 
tion  intended  was  simply  to  declare  that,  so  soon  as  the  people  of  nine 
States  should  adopt  and  ratify  it,  it  should,  as  to  these  States,  go  into 
operation.  The  gentleman  has  concluded,  sir,  by  declaring  again,  that 
the  contest  is  between  power  on  one  side  and  liberty  on  the  other — and 
that  he  is  for  liberty.  All  this  is  easily  said.  But  what  is  that  liberty 
whose  cause  he  espouses  ?  It  is  liberty  given  to  a  part  to  govern  the 
whole.  It  is  liberty,  claimed  by  a  small  minority,  to  govern  and  control 
the  great  majority.  And  what  is  the  power  which  he  resists?  It  is  the 
general  power  of  the  popular  will ;  it  is  the  power  of  all  the  people,  ex 
ercised  by  majorities,  in  the  Houses  of  the  Legislature,  in  the  form  of 
which  all  free  governments  exercise  power.  Mr.  President,  turn  this  ques 
tion  over,  and  present  it  as  we  will — argue  upon  it  as  we  may — exhaust 
upon  it  all  the  fountains  of  metaphysics — stretch  over  it  all  the  meshes  of 
logical  or  political  subtlety — it  still  comes  to  this :  Shall  we  have  a  general 
government  ?  Shall  we  continue  the  Union  of  the  States  under  a  govern 
ment  instead  of  a  league  ?  This  is  the  upshot  of  the  whole  matter ;  be 
cause,  if  we  are  to  have  a  government,  that  government  must  act  like  other 
governments,  by  majorities,  it  must  have  this  power,  like  other  govern 
ments,  of  enforcing  its  own  laws  and  its  own  decisions ;  clothed  with  au 
thority  by  the  people,  and  always  responsible  to  the  people,  it  must  be 
able  to  hold  on  its  course  unchecked  by  external  interposition.  According 
to  the  gentleman's  view  of  the  matter,  the  Constitution  is  a  league ;  accord 
ing  to  mine,  it  is  a  regular  popular  government.  This  vital  and  all-im 
portant  question  the  people  will  decide,  and  in  deciding  it,  they  will  deter 
mine  whether  by  ratifying  the  present  Constitution  and  frame  of  govern 
ment,  they  meant  to  do  nothing  more  than  to  amend  the  articles  of  the  old 
confederation." 

But  it  is  time  to  quote  the  whole  of  Mr.  Stephens'  proofs 
of  Mr.  Webster's  change  of  opinions.     They  consist  of 

1.  The  assumption  that  Mr.  "Webster  did  not  and  could  not 
reply  to  Mr.  Calhoun's  argument  of  1833,  and  that  he  must 
have  felt  it  to  be  unanswerable. 

2.  An  argument  made  by  Mr.  "Webster  in  1839,  in  the  Su 
preme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  the  case  of  The  Bank  of 
Augusta  vs.  Earle. 


74  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

3.  An  opinion  given  by  Mr.  "Webster  to  the  Barings  in  1839, 
respecting  the  capacity  of  the  States  to  contract  debts. 

4.  A  speech  made  by  Mr.  Webster  at  Capon  Springs  in 
Virginia,  June  28,  1851. 

Every  thing  relating  to  the  specific  sources  of  proof  is  now 
before  me.  The  1st,  2d,  and  3d  are  embraced  in  Mr.  "Webster's 
published  works.  The  speech  at  Capon  Springs  is  not  included 
in  his  works,  but  I  have  a  pamphlet  copy  of  it  before  me,  which 
once  belonged  to  him.  The  specifications,  then,  may  be  ex 
amined  in  their  order. 

I.— The  Delate  of  1S33. 

Whether  Mr.  Webster  must  have  felt  Mr.  Calhoun's  speech 
to  be  unanswerable  must  be  judged  of  by  the  reader  after  ex 
amining  the  whole  debate.  Mr.  Stephens  may  think  that  Mr. 
Webster's  rejoinder  was  insufficient ;  but  I  do  not  understand 
how  he  is  entitled  to  say  that  Mr.  Webster  made  no  rejoinder, 
or  how  it  was  that  "Mr.  Calhoun  remained  master  of  the  arena," 
through  any  failure  of  Mr.  Webster  to  continue  standing  on  hi? 
own  ground.  A  rejoinder  does  not  necessarily  embrace  a  full 
repetition  of  the  original  argument.  As  a  reiissertion  of  one's 
position,  its  contents  depend  on  one's  judgment  of  the  necessity 
for  saying  more  than  one  has  already  said ;  and  when  the  ques 
tion  is,  not  whether  a  speaker  had  the  best  of  the  argument,  but 
whether  his  rejoinder  shows  that  he  felt  himself  to  have  been 
floored  by  his  opponent,  we  must  enter  into  his  own  estimate 
of  what  was  required  to  be  said  in  that  rejoinder.  Having  al 
ready  given  the  history  of  that  great  debate  it  is  unnecessary 
for  me  to  say  more  concerning  the  success  with  which  Mr. 
Webster  maintained  his  position. 

2. — The  Argument  in  the  Bank  Case. 

Mr.  Webster's  argument  in  the  case  of  The  Bank  of  Augusta 
vs.  Earle,  in  1839. 

Mr.  Stephens  makes  the  following  quotation  from  Mr.  Web 
ster's  argument,  the  meaning  of  which  he  appears  to  have  mis 
apprehended.* 

*  I  preserve  the  italics  as  Mr.  Stephens  has  made  them. 


ME.   CUETIS'  EEYIEW.  75 

" '  But  it  is  argued,'  said  Mr.  "Webster,  '  that  though  this  law  of  comity 
exists  as  between  independent  nations,  it  does  not  exist  between  the  States 
of  this  Union.  That  argument  appears  to  have  been  the  foundation  of  the 
judgment  in  the  Court  below. 

"  '  In  respect  to  this  law  of  comity,  it  is  said,  States  are  not  Nations ; 
they  have  no  National  Sovereignty ;  a  sort  of  residuum  of  Sovereignty  is 
all  that  remains  to  them.  The  National  Sovereignty,  it  is  said,  is  conferred 
on  this  Government,  and  part  of  the  municipal  Sovereignty.  The  rest  of 
the  municipal  Sovereignty  belongs  to  the  States.  Notwithstanding  the 
respect  which  I  entertain  for  the  learned  judge  who  presided  in  that 
Court,  I  cannot  follow  in  the  train  of  his  argument.  I  can  make  no  dia 
gram,  such  as  this,  of  the  partition  of  national  character  between  the  State 
and  General  Governments.  I  cannot  map  it  out,  and  say,  so  far  is  national 
and  so  far  municipal ;  and  here  is  the  exact  line  where  one  begin's  and  the 
other  ends.  We  have  no  second  La  Place — and  we  never  shall  have — with 
his  "MScanique  Politique,"  able  to  define  and  describe  the  orbit  of  each 
sphere  in  our  political  system  with  such  exact  mathematical  precision. 
There  is  no  such  thing  as  arranging  these  governments  of  ours  by  the  laws 
of  gravitation  so  that  they  will  be  sure  to  go  on  forever  without  impinging. 
These  institutions  are  practical,  admirable,  glorious,  blessed  creations. 
Still  they  were,  when  created,  experimental  institutions :  and  if  the  conven 
tion  which  framed  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  had  set  down  in 
it  certain  general  definitions  of  power,  such  as  have  been  alleged  in  the 
argument  of  this  case,  and  stopped  there,  I  verily  believe  that  in  the  course 
of  fifty  years  which  have  since  elapsed,  this  government  would  have  never 
gone  into  operation. 

"  '  Suppose  that  this  Constitution  has  said,  in  terms  of  the  language  of 
the  Court  below,  all  National  Sovereignty  shall  belong  to  the  United  States ; 
all  municipal  sovereignty  to  the  several  States.  I  will  say,  that  however 
clear,  however  distinct,  such  a  definition  may  appear  to  those  who  use  it, 
the  employment  of  it  in  the  Constitution  could  only  have  led  to  utter  confusion 
and  uncertainty.  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  the  States  have  no  Nation 
al  Sovereignty.  The  laws  of  some  of  the  States — Maryland  and  Virginia, 
for  instance — provide  punishment  for  treason.  The  power  thus  exercised 
is  certainly  not  municipal.  Virginia  has  a  law  of  alienage ;  that  is  a  power 
exercised  against  a  foreign  nation.  Does  not  the  question  necessarily 
arise,  when  a  power  is  exercised  concerning  an  alien  enemy — enemy  to 
whom  ?  The  law  of  escheat,  which  exists  in  all  the  States,  is  also  the 
exercise  of  a  great  sovereign  power. 

"  '  The  term  "  Sovereignty  "  does  not  occur  in  the  Constitution  at  all. 
The  Constitution  treats  States  as  States,  and  the  United  States  as  the 
United  States ;  and,  by  a  careful  enumeration,  declares  all  the  powers  that 
are  granted  to  the  United  States,  and  all  the  rest  are  reserved  to  tha 
States.  If  we  pursue,  to  the  extreme  point  the  powers  granted,  and  the 


76  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

powers  reserved,  the  powers  of  the  General  and  State  governments  will 
be  found,  it  is  to  be  feared,  impinging,  and  in  conflict.  Our  hope  is,  that 
the  prudence  and  patriotism  of  the  States,  and  the  wisdom  of  this  govern 
ment,  will  prevent  that  catastrophe.  For  myself,  I  will  pursue  the  advice 
of  the  court  in  Deveaux's  case,  I  will  avoid  nice  metaphysical  subtilities, 
and  all  useless  theories;  I  will  keep  my  feet  out  of  the  traps  of  general  defi 
nition;  I  will  keep  my  feet  out  of  all  traps;  I  will  keep  to  things  as  they  are, 
and  go  no  further  to  inquire  what  they  might  be,  if  they  were  not  what 
they  are.  The  States  of  this  Union,  as  States,  are  subject  to  all  the  volun 
tary  and  customary  laws  of  Nations.' 

"  [Mr.  Webster  here  referred  to  and  quoted  a  passage  from  Vattel  (page 
61),  which,  he  said,  clearly  showed  that  States  connected  together,  as  are 
the  States  of  this  Union,  must  be  considered  as  much  component  parts  of 
the  law  of  nations  as  any  others.] 

"  'If,  for  the  decision  of  any  question,  the  proper  rule  is  to  be  found  in 
the  law  of  nations,  that  law  adheres  to  the  subject.  It  follows  the  subject 
through,  no  matter  into  what  place,  high  or  low.  You  cannot  escape  the 
law  of  nations  in  a  case  where  it  is  applicable.  The  air  of  every  judica 
ture  is  full  of  it.  It  pervades  the  courts  of  law  of  the  highest  character, 
and  the  court  of  piepouclre ;  aye,  even  the  constable's  court.  It  is  part 
of  the  universal  law.  .  It  may  share  the  glorious  eulogy  pronounced  by 
Hooker  upon  law  itself;  that  there  is  nothing  so  high  as  to  be  beyond  the 
reach  of  its  power,  nothing  so  low  as  to  be  beneath  its  care.  If  any 
question  be  within  the  influence  of  the  law  of  nations,  the  law  of  nations 
is  there.  If  the  law  of  comity  does  not  exist  between  the  States  of  this 
Union,  how  can  it  exist  between  a  State  and  the  subjects  of  any  foreign 
sovereignty  ? ' M 

Before  introducing  this  extract,  Mr.  Stephens  makes  the  ex 
traordinary  observation  that  "in  this  case  the  nature  of  the 
general  government  and  the  nature  of  the  State  government, 
in  their  relations  to  each  other,  came  up  for  adjudication."  If 
Mr.  Stephens  means  that  there  was  any  thing  in  this  case  which 
presented  for  adjudication  the  question  of  State  sovereignty, 
that  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  doctrine  of  State  Secession 
from  the  Union,  or  that  the  decision  affords  any  color  for  that 
doctrine,  he  is  quite  mistaken.  The  question  in  the  case  which 
led  to  the  course  of  reasoning  embraced  in  the  extract  from 
Mr.  Webster's  argument  was  simply  whether  a  corporation 
created  by  one  State  can  make  a  valid  contract  in  another 
State  and  can  maintain  a  suit  upon  it  in  the  courts  of  that 
other  State.  No  denial  of  this  capacity  can  be  maintained, 


MR.   CURTIS'  REVIEW.  7T 

except  by  showing  that  the  States  of  this  Union  are  not  bound 
as  between  themselves  by  the  comity  of  nations,  which,  by  the 
law  of  nations,  permits  the  citizens  of  the  different  sovereign 
ties  to  contract  and  to  sue  in  each  other's  dominions  in  the 
absence  of  any  prohibitory  law  or  declared  prohibitory  policy 
of  the  State  where  the  right  is  claimed.  Of  course,  in  order 
to  make  the  comity  of  nations,  in  this  respect,  applicable  to  the 
States  of  this  Union  in  their  relations  with  each  other,  it  is 
necessary  to  regard  each  State  as,  for  certain  purposes,  a  nation ; 
or,  in  other  words,  to  regard  it  as  a  sovereign  State ;  for  such  a 
State  alone  can  be  affected  by  the  law  of  nations,  as  it  exists 
when  not  curtailed  by  the  sovereign  will,  or  can  declare  by 
legislation  or  by  its  public  policy  that  it  does  not  mean  to  be 
bound  by  a  particular  rule  of  that  law.  But  neither  Mr.  Web 
ster  nor  any  one  else,  in  claiming  that  the  States  are  sovereign 
in  respect  to  their  liability  to  be  affected  by  the  voluntary  law 
of  nations,  in  their  relations  to  the  citizens  of  other  States,  in 
matters  of  property,  thereby  admits  that  they  are  sovereigns  in 
respect  to  their  capacity  to  withdraw  from  the  Union.  It  is 
remarkable  that  Mr.  Stephens  should  have  confounded  these 
two  things  which  are  as  wide  asunder  as  the  poles.  When  did 
Mr.  Webster  ever  deny  that  the  States  are  sovereign  in  respect 
to  all  those  political  powers  which  are  not  conferred  on  the 
general  government?  He  did  not  deny  this  in  1830  or  1833, 
and  he  had  no  new  views  to  acquire  or  to  express  upon  it  in 
1839.  It  is  just  as  much  a  fixed  doctrine  in  the  Webster  school 
of  constitutional  law  that  the  States  are  sovereign  States  as  it 
is  in  the  school  of  Mr.  Calhoun.  But  the  question  is,  sovereign 
as  to  w^hat  ?  That  they  are  sovereign  in  respect  to  the  power 
of  declaring  what  contracts  may  be  made  within  their  limits,  or 
what  remedies  may  be  pursued  in  their  courts,  all  will  agree ; 
and  a  State  being  to  this  extent  a  nation,  Mr.  Webster  argued 
that  it  is  bound  by  the  comity  of  nations  to  permit  the  citizens 
of  other  States  to  contract  and  to  sue  in  its  jurisdiction ;  and 
so  the  court  held.  But  what  has  all  this  to  do  with  that  other 
claim  of  sovereignty,  which  makes  it  competent  for  a  State,  as 
a  constitutional  right  resulting  from  the  nature  of  the  Union, 
to  break  up  the  Union  by  secession  ?  The  two  things  can  be 


78  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

connected  only  by  assuming  that  he  who  calls  the  States  sover 
eign  for  some  purposes  must  of  necessity  so  regard  them  for 
all  other  purposes.  I  know  that  it  has  always  been  so  assumed 
by  Mr.  Calhoun  and  his  followers,  whose  cardinal  doctrine  has 
been  that  sovereignty  is  indivisible.  But  this  was  never  Mr. 
Webster's  doctrine ;  and  therefore  when  he  argued  that  as  to 
regulating  the  right  to  contract  and  to  sue  within  its  own  juris 
diction  a  State  is  a  nation,  and  is  bound  by  the  comity  of  na 
tions,  he  modified  no  previous  opinion  respecting  the  final  and 
irrevocable  grant  of  political  powers  which  he  had  always  main 
tained  was  made  by  the  States  when  they  ratified  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States. 

I  presume  that  Mr.  Webster  would  have  been  very  much 
astonished  if,  on  the  argument  of  this  case,  one  of  his  oppo 
nents  had  risen  and  said,  "  So,  then,  sir,  it  appears  that  you 
have  modified  your  opinions  about  the  nature  of  the  General 
Government,  for  you  have  distinctly  said  that  the  States  are 
nations ;  that  they  are  sovereign ;  that  the  Constitution  treats 
the  States  as  States,  and  if  they  are  sovereign  States,  you  must 
have  changed  your  views  as  you  expressed  them  in  the  Senate 
in  1830  and  1833."  I  fancy  that  Mr.  Webster  would  have  an 
swered  thus : 

"When  did  I  ever  deny  that  the  States  are  independent 
political  communities,  with  full  attributes  of  sovereignty  in  re 
spect  to  all  the  powers  of  government  not  embraced  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  not  therein  expressly 
restricted  ?  Be  pleased  to  observe,  sir,  that  the  idea  that  a  State 
cannot  part  with  a  portion  of  its  sovereignty  and  remain  a  State 
may  be  yours,  but  it  is  not  mine.  It  has  always  been  my  doc 
trine,  and  is  still,  that  the  States  did  this  very  thing  when  they 
ratified  the  Constitution ;  that  they  parted  with  a  portion  of 
their  sovereignty  and  yet  remained  States." 

Mr.  Stephens  may  say  this  is  impossible,  but  he  has  no 
ground  for  saying  that  Mr.  Webster  ever  regarded  it  as  impos 
sible.  His  argument  in  the  bank  case  could  have  been  made 
on  the  same  day  with  his  reply  to  Hayne  or  his  reply  to  Cal 
houn,  and  no  man  could  have  found  the  smallest  departure 
from  what  he  had  previously  maintained. 


MB.  CURTIS'  REVIEW.  79 

3. — The  Opinion  given  to  the  Barings  in  1831. 

In  the  summer  of  1839  Mr.  Webster  was  in  England.  It 
was  the  era  of  "repudiation."  Several  of  the  States  proposed 
to  refuse  payment  of  the  bonds  which  they  had  issued  for  rail 
roads  and  other  improvements.  The  firm  of  Baring  Brothers, 
in  London,  representing  the  holders  of  a  great  amount  of  these 
securities,  aware  of  the  misconceptions  prevailing  in  Europe 
concerning  the  nature  of  our  political  systems,  and  also  of  the 
grounds  taken  by  some  of  the  State  governments,  in  excuse  for 
their  repudiation,  applied  to  Mr.  Webster  for  an  opinion  on  the 
question,  "Whether  the  Legislature  of  one  of  the  States  has 
legal  and  constitutional  power  to  contract  loans  at  home  and 
abroad  ? "  To  a  question  so  plain  to  every  American  constitu 
tional  lawyer  there  could  be,  of  course,  but  one  answer ;  and  it 
seems  extraordinary  that  Mr.  Stephens  should  have  found  in 
the  answer  given  by  Mr.  Webster  any  views  of  State  sover 
eignty  different  from  those  which  Mr.  Webster  had  always 
maintained.  It  would  be  difficult  to  describe  our  political  sys 
tem  with  greater  precision  or  more  correctly  than  Mr.  Webster 
stated  it  in  this  opinion.  Having  repeated  the  question  pro 
pounded  to  him,  he  said : 

"  To  this  I  answer  that  the  Legislature  of  a  State  has  such  power,  and 
how  any  doubt  could  have  arisen  on  this  point  it  is  difficult  for  rne  to 
conceive.  Every  State  is  an  independent,  sovereign,  political  community, 
except  in  so  far  as  certain  powers,  which  it  might  otherwise  have  exercised, 
have  been  conferred  on  a  General  Government  established  under  a  written 
Constitution  and  exercising  its  authority  over  the  people  of  all  the  States. 
This  General  Government  is  a  limited  Government.  Its  powers  are  specific 
and  enumerated.  All  powers  not  conferred  on  it  still  remain  with  the 
States  or  with  the  people.  The  State  Legislatures,  on  the  other  hand, 
possess  all  usual  and  ordinary  powers  of  government,  subject  to  any  limi 
tations  which  may  be  imposed  in  their  own  Constitutions,  and  with  the 
exception,  as  I  have  said,  of  the  operation  on  those  powers  of  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States." 

Is  there  any  thing  in  this  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine 
maintained  by  Mr.  Webster  in  1830  and  1833  ?  If  there  is  any 
thing  ever  uttered  by  Mr.  Webster  which  does  not  sanction  the 
idea  of  State  independence  of  the  authority  of  the  General 


80  THE  KEYIEWERS  EEVIEWED. 

Government  as  that  authority  is  established  by  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  it  is  this  opinion,  given  to  the  Barings  in 
1839.  Mr.  Stephens  may  think  that  it  is  impossible  for  any  one 
to  speak  of  the  States  as  "independent,  sovereign,  political 
communities,"  without  conceding  what  is  claimed  by  Mr.  Cal- 
houn's  theory  of  our  system.  But  he  must  remember  when 
Mr.  Webster  imputed  these  attributes  to  the  States,  he  limited 
them  in  the  same  sentence  by  an  exception,  which  comprehends 
the  whole  doctrine  of  Mr.  Webster's  previous  life,  namely,  that 
the  powers  of  the  States  are  circumscribed  in  certain  particu 
lars  by  a  general  Constitution,  which  exercises  a  certain  au 
thority  over  the  people  of  ALL  the  States.  But  as  this  Consti 
tution  contains  no  limitation  on  the  powers  of  the  States  to 
make  loans  for  their  own  purposes — it  is  strictly  correct  to 
speak  of  the  States  as  "  independent,  sovereign,  political  com 
munities,"  in  this  and  many  other  respects.  It  all  comes  back 
to  the  question  whether  the  sovereign  powers  of  a  people  are 
divisible,  so  that  a  part  can  be  granted  irrevocably  and  a  part 
can  be  retained.  In  the  Calhoun  theory  this  is  regarded  as  im 
possible  ;  in  the  "Webster  theory  it  is  regarded  as  perfectly  prac 
ticable.  But  because  the  disciples  of  the  former  hold  political 
sovereignty  to  be  in  itself  indivisible,  they  are  not  warranted 
in  imputing  to  Mr.  Webster  an  adoption  of  their  opinions,  for 
the  reason  that  he  uniformly  treated  the  States  as  independent 
political  communities,  except  in  so  far  as  they  are  restrained 
or  limited  by  the  powers  which  they  granted  to  the  General 
Government  when  they  ratified  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States. 

4. — The  Speech  made  "by  Mr.  Webster  in  June,  1851,  at  Capon 
/Springs,  in  Virginia. 

The  citation  from  Mr.  Webster's  speech  at  Capon  Springs, 
as  proof  of  his  "  change  of  views  as  to  the  Constitution  being 
a  compact  between  the  States,"  is  made  by  Mr.  Stephens  in  the 
following  manner : 

"  But,  besides  all  this,  as  a  further  proof  of  Mr.  Webster's  change  of 
views  as  to  the  Constitution  being  a  compact  between  the  States,  I  cite  you 


MR.   CURTIS'  REVIEW.  81 

to  a  later  speech  made  by  him  at  Capon  Springs,  in  Virginia,  on  the  28th 
June,  1851.     Here  it  is.     In  this  he  says: 

"  '  The  leading  sentiment  in  the  toast  from  the  Chair  is  the  Union  of 
the  States.  The  Union  of  the  States !  What  mind  can  comprehend  the 
consequences  of  that  Union,  past,  present,  and  to  come  ?  The  Union  of 
these  States  is  the  all-absorbing  topic  of  the  day ;  on  it  all  men  write, 
speak,  think,  and  dilate,  from  the  rising  of  the  sun  to  the  going  down 
thereof.  And  yet,  gentlemen,  I  fear  its  importance  has  been  but  insuffi 
ciently  appreciated.' " 

"  Further  on  he  says : 

" '  How  absurd  is  it  to  suppose  that  when  different  parties  enter  into  a 
compact  for  certain  purposes,  either  can  disregard  any  one  provision,  and 
expect,  nevertheless,  the  other  to  observe  the  rest.  I  intend,  for  one,  to 
regard  and  maintain,  and  carry  out,  to  the  fullest  extent,  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  which  I  have  sworn  to  support  in  all  its  parts  and 
all  its  provisions.  It  is  written  in  the  Constitution :  "  No  person  held  to 
service  or  labor  in  one  State,  under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another 
shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from 
such  service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim  of  the  party  to 
whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due." 

"  '  That  is  as  much  a  part  of  the  Constitution  as  any  other,  and  as  equal 
ly  binding  and  obligatory  as  any  other  on  all  men,  public  or  private.  And 
who  denies  this  ?  None  but  the  abolitionists  of  the  North.  And  pray 
what  is  it  they  will  not  deny  ?  They  have  but  the  one  idea ;  and  it  would 
seem  that  these  fanatics  at  the  North  and  the  secessionists  at  the  South 
are  putting  their  heads  together  to  devise  means  to  defeat  the  good  de 
signs  of  honest  and  patriotic  men.  They  act  to  the  same  end  and  the 
same  object,  and  the  Constitution  has  to  take  the  fire  from  both  sides. 

"  '  I  have  not  hesitated  to  say,  and  I  repeat,  that  if  the  Northern  States 
refuse,  wilfully  and  deliberately,  to  carry  into  effect  that  part  of  the  Con 
stitution  which  respects  the  restoration  of  fugitive  slaves,  and  Congress 
provide  no  remedy,  the  South  would  no  longer  be  bound  to  observe  the 
compact.  A  bargain  cannot  be  broken  on  one  side  and  still  bind  the 
other  side.  I  say  to  you  gentlemen  in  Virginia,  as  I  said  on  the  shores  of 
Lake  Erie  and  in  the  city  of  Boston,  as  I  may  say  again  in  that  city  or 
elsewhere  in  the  North,  that  you  of  the  South  have  as  much  right  to  re 
ceive  your  fugitive  slaves,  as  the  North  has  to  any  of  its  rights  or  privi 
leges  of  navigation  and  commerce.' 

"  Again,  said  he :  '  I  am  as  ready  to  fight  and  to  fall  for  the  Constitu 
tional  rights  of  Virginia  as  I  am  for  those  of  Massachusetts.' 

"  In  this  speech  Mr.  Webster  distinctly  held  that  the  Union  was  a 
Union  of  States.  That  the  Union  was  founded  upon  a  compact.  And 
that  a  compact  broken  on  one  side  could  not  continue  to  bind  the  other." 

As  a  historian,  Mr.  Stephens  is  singularly  unfortunate.  He 
cites  Mr.  "Webster  for  the  purpose  of  proving  that  he  had  come, 
in  1851,  to  regard  the  Constitution  as  a  compact  between  the 
States,  yet  he  overlooks  the  passages  in  the  same  speech  which 
show  that  he  did  not  so  regard  it.  He  refers  to  the  sentiment 
uttered  by  Mr.  "Webster,  that  a  compact  broken  on  one  side 
6 


82  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

could  not  continue  to  bind  the  other,  and  yet  he  omits  the  con 
temporary  evidence  which  shows  in  what  sense  and  l)y  what 
means  Mr.  Webster  supposed  the  compact  could  be  broken  by 
"  the  other  side."  Let  the  whole  truth,  therefore,  be  told. 

Every  one  will  recollect  that  when  the  compromise  measures 
of  1850  were  before  Congress,  the  passage  of  the  new  fugitive 
slave  law  was  resisted,  on  the  ground  that  the  clause  of  the 
Constitution,  which  required  the  extradition,  was  a  mere  treaty 
or  compact  between  the  States ;  that  if  the  Northern  States  did 
not  choose  to  execute  it,  but  preferred  to  break  the  compact, 
there  was  no  remedy,  or  none  that  Congress  could  interpose ; 
and  that,  as  the  Northern  States  had  come  to  regard  this  treaty 
as  immoral^  no  law  on  the  subject  ought  to  be  voted  for  by 
their  representatives  in  Congress.  These  sentiments  were  rife 
throughout  the  North  after  the  act  of  1850  was  passed,  and 
Mr.  Webster  had  occasion  to  refer  to  them  in  a  great  many 
popular  addresses  in  1850,  1851,  and  1852.  In  substance,  this 
Northern  doctrine  was  identical  with  the  Southern  doctrine 
which  maintained  the  right  of  secession  from  the  Union  ;  for 
the  two  concurred  in  imputing  to  the  Constitution  the  character 
of  a  compact  between  the  States,  although  the  Northern  advo 
cates  of  this  view  applied  it  to  but  one  provision  of  the  Con 
stitution,  while  the  Southern  politicians  applied  it  to  the  whole. 
During  the  entire  period  from  1850  to  a  time  long  after  the 
death  of  Mr.  Webster,  the  right  of  secession  was  much  dis 
cussed  in  the  South ;  and  in  speaking  at  Capon  Springs,  he  had 
occasion  to  consider  the  Southern  and  the  Northern  phases 
of  a  kindred  doctrine,  and  to  show  how  they  both  led  to 
revolution,  how  there  is  no  such  thing  as  constitutional  and 
peaceable  secession,  and  how,  consequently,  the  Constitution  isv 
not  to  be  regarded  as  a  mere  compact.  Now,  it  is  proper  that 
what  Mr.  Webster  actually  did  say  at  Capon  Springs  should  be 
brought  forward,  from  a  report  published  in  a  pamphlet  at 
Washington,  which  I  have  reason  to  know  had  his  sanction. 
The  fact  is  that  he  made  two  speeches  at  the  same  dinner, 
which  was  given  to  him  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  surrounding 
country  for  fifty  miles  around.  In  the  first  speech  he  said,  in 
conclusion : 


MR.   CURTIS'  REVIEW.  83 

"  GENTLEMEN — I  am  aware  that  the  respect  paid  to  me  to-day  is  in  con 
sequence  of  my  support  of  the  adjustment  measures  of  the  last  Congress. 
Although  I  wished  to  raise  no  false  alarm,  nor  create  any  fears,  yet  I  be 
lieved  in  my  conscience. that  a  crisis  was  at  hand— ra  dangerous,  a  fearful 
crisis ;  and  I  resolved  to  meet  it  at  all  hazards,  and  with  whatever  strength 
I  possessed.  A  true  patriot,  like  a  faithful  mariner,  must  be  prepared  for 
all  exigencies.  In  the  words  of  the  old  song : 

-'  He  is  born  for  all  weathers, 


Let  the  winds  blow  high  or  blow  low  ; 
His  duty  keeps  him  to  his  tethers, 

And  where  the  gale  drives  he  must  go.' 
(Applause.) 

"The  support  of  the  Union  is  a  great,  practical  subject,  involving  the 
prosperity  and  glory  of  the  whole  country,  and  affecting  the  prosperity 
of  every  individual  in  it.  We  ought  to  take  a  large  and  comprehensive 
view  of  it ;  to  look  to  its  vast  results,  and  to  the  consequences  which 
would  flow  from  its  overthrow.  It  is  not  a  mere  topic  for  ingenious  dis 
quisition,  or  theoretical  or  fanatical  criticism.  Those  who  assail  the 
Union  at  the  present  day  seem  to  be  persons  of  one  idea  only,  and  many 
of  them  of  but  half  an  idea.  (Applause.)  They  plant  their  batteries  on 
some  useless  abstraction,  some  false  dogma,  or  some  gratuitous  assump 
tion.  Or,  perhaps,  seeking  for  some  spot,  or  speck,  or  blot,  or  blur,  and 
if  they  find  any  thing  of  this  kind,  they  are  at  once  for  overturning  the 
whole  fabric.  And,  when  nothing  else  will  answer,  they  invoke  religion 
and  speak  of  a  higher  law.  Gentlemen,  this  North  Mountain  is  high ;  the 
Blue  Ridge  higher  still ;  the  Alleghany  higher  than  either ;  and  yet  this 
higher  law  ranges  farther  than  an  eagle's  flight  above  the  highest  peak  of 
the  Alleghany.  (Laughter.)  No  common  vision  can  discern  it ;  no  con 
science,  not  transcendental  and  ecstatic,  can  feel  it ;  the  hearing  of  com 
mon  men  never  listens  to  its  highest  behests;  and,  therefore,  one  should 
think  it  is  not  a  safe  law  to  be  acted  on  in  matters  of  the  highest  practical 
moment.  It  is  the  code,  however,  of  the  fanatical  and  factious  abolition 
ists  of  the  North.  The  secessionists  of  the  South  take  a  different  course 
of  remark.  They  are  learned  and  eloquent;  they  are  animated  and  full 
of  spirit ;  they  are  high-minded  and  chivalrous;  they  state  their  supposed 
injuries  and  causes  of  complaint  in  elegant  phrases  and  exalted  tones  of 
speech.  But  these  complaints  are  all  vague  and  general.  I  confess  to 
you,,  gentlemen,  that  I  know  no  hydrostatic  pressure  strong  enough  to 
bring  them  into  any  solid  form  in  which  they  could  be  seen  or  felt. 
(Laughter  and  applause.)  They  think  otherwise,  doubtless.  But,  for  one, 
I  can  discern  nothing  real  or  well-grounded  in  their  complaints.  If  I  may 
be  allowed  to  be  a  little  professional,  I  would  say  that  all  their  complaints 
and  alleged  grievances  are  like  a  very  insufficient  plea  in  the  law ;  they 
are  bad  on  general  demurrer  for  want  of  substance.  (Loud  laughter.)  But 


84  THE  KE VIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

I  am  not  disposed  to  reproach  those  gentlemen,  or  to  speak  of  them  with 
disrespect.  I  prefer  to  leave  them  to  their  own  reflections.  I  make  no 
arguments  against  resolutions,  conventions,  secession  speeches,  or  procla 
mations.  Let  these  things  go  on.  The  whole  matter,  it  is  to  be  hoped, 
will  blow  over,  and  men  will  return  to  a  sounder  mode  of  thinking.  But 
one  thing,  gentlemen,  be  assured  of — the  first  step  taken  in  the  programme 
of  secession,  which  shall  be  an  actual  infringement  of  the  Constitution 
or  the  laws,  will  be  promptly  met.  (Great  applause.)  And  I  would  not 
remain  an  hour  in  any  Administration  that  should  not  immediately  meet 
any  such  violation  of  the  Constitution  and  law  effectually,  and  at  once. 
(Prolonged  applause.)  And  I  can  assure  you,  gentlemen,  that  all  those 
with  whom  I  am  at  present  associated  in  the  Government  entertain  the 
same  decided  purpose.  (Renewed  applause  and  cheers.)  And  now,  gen 
tlemen,  let  me  advert  to  a  cheering  and  gratifying  occurrence.  Let  me  do 
honor  to  your  great  and  ancient  commonwealth  of  Virginia.  Let  me  say 
that,  in  my  opinion,  the  resolutions  passed  by  her  Legislature  at  the  last 
session,  in  which  some  gentlemen  now  present  bore  a  part,  have  eflectually 
suppressed,  or  greatly  tended  to  suppress,  the  notion  of  separate  govern 
ments  and  new  confederacies.  (Great  applause.)  All  hopes  of  disunion, 
founded  upon  the  probable  course  of  Virginia,  are  dissipated  into  thin 
air.  <*  (Cheers.)  An  eminent  gentleman  in  the  Nashville  Convention  ejacu 
lated  :  '  Oh,  that  Virginia  were  with  us  !  If  Virginia  would  but  take  the 
lead  in  going  out  of  the  Union,  other  Southern  States  would  cheerfully 
follow  that  lead.'  Ah,  but  that '  if  was  a  great  obstacle.  (Laughter.)  It 
was  pregnant  with  important  meaning.  'If  Virginia  would  take  the 
lead.'  But  who,  that  looked  for  any  consistency  in  Virginia,  expected  to 
see  her  leading  States  out  of  the  Union,  since  she  took  such  great  pains, 
under  the  counsels  of  her  ablest  and  wisest  men,  to  lead  them  into  it  ? 
(Applause.)  Her  late  resolutions  have  put  a  decided  negative  upon  that 
'  if,'  and  the  country  cordially  thanks  her  for  it.  Fellow-citizens,  I  must 
bring  these  remarks  to  a  close.  Other  gentlemen  are  present  to  whom  you 
expect  to  have  the  pleasure  of  listening.  (Cries  of  '  Go  on  ! ')  My  con 
cluding  sentiment  is  :  The  Union  of  the  States  ;  may  those  ancient  friends, 
Virginia  and  Massachusetts,  continue  to  uphold  it  so  long  as  the  waves  of 
the  Atlantic  shall  beat  on  the  shores  of  the  one,  or  the  Alleghanies  remain 
firm  on  their  bases  in  the  territories  of  the  other !  " 

He  was  again  called  up  by  a  Democratic  gentleman,  who 
expressed  his  concurrence  in  all  that  Mr.  Webster  had  said  in 
his  previous  remarks,  although  he  had  long  differed  from  him 
on  all  other  questions  of  public  policy.  In  the  second  speech 
Mr.  "Webster  said : 

"  Whatever  may  have  been  the  differences  of  opinion  which  have  here 
tofore  existed  between  the  Democratic  and  Whig  parties  on  other  subjects, 


ME.  CURTIS'  EEYIEW.  85 

they  are  now  forgotten,  or  at  least  have  become  subordinate,  and  the 
important  question  that  is  now  asked  is,  '  Are  you  a  Union  man  ? '  (Great 
applause.)  The  question  at  this  time  is,  the  Union,  and  how  we  shall 
preserve  its  blessings  for  the  present,  and  for  all  time  to  come.  To  main 
tain  that  Union,  we  must  observe,  in  good  faith,  the  Constitution  and  all 
its  parts.  If  the  Constitution  be  not  observed  in  all  its  parts,  but  its  pro 
visions  be  deliberately  and  permanently  set  aside  in  some  parts,  the  whole 
of  it  ceases  to  be  binding  ;  but  the  case  must  be  clear,  flagrant,  undeniable, 
and  in  a  point  of  vital  interest.  In  short,  it  must  be  such  as  would  justify 
revolution,  for,  after  all,  secession,  disruption  of  the  Union,  or  successful 
nullification  are  but  other"  names  for  revolution.  Where  the  whole  system 
of  laws  and  government  is  overthrown,  under  whatever  name  the  thing  is 
done,  what  is  it. but  revolution  ?  For  it  would  be  absurd  to  suppose  that, 
by  whole  States  and  large  portions  of  the  country,  either  the  North  or 
the  South  has  the  power  or  the  right  to  violate  any  part  of  that  Constitu 
tion,  directly  and  of  purpose,  and  still  claim  from  the  other  observance  of 
its  provisions.  (Applause.)  If  the^South  were  to  violate  any  part  of  the 
Constitution  intentionally  and  systematically,  and  persist  in  so  doing  year 
after  year,  and  no  remedy  could  be  had,  would  the  North  be  any  longer 
bound  by  the  rest  of  it  ?  And  if  the  North  were  deliberately,  habitually, 
and  of  fixed  purpose  to  disregard  one  part  of  it,  would  the  South  be 
bound  any  longer  to  observe  its  other  obligations  ?  This  is,  indeed,  to  be 
understood  with  some  qualification,  for  I  do  not  mean,  of  course,  that 
every  violation  by  a  State  of  an  article  of  the  Constitution  would  discharge 
other  States  from  observing  its  provisions.  No  State  can  decide  for  itself 
what  is  constitutional  and  what  is  not.  When  any  part  of  the  Constitu 
tion  is  supposed  to  be  violated  by  a  State  law,  the  true  mode  of  proceeding 
is  to  bring  the  case  before  the  judicial  tribunals,  and  if  the  unconstitution 
ally  of  the  State  law  is  made  out,  it  is  to  be  set  aside.  This  has  been 
done  in  repeated  cases,  and  is  the  ordinary  remedy.  But  what  I  mean  to 
say  is,  that  if  the  public  men  of  a  large  portion  of  the  country,  and  espe 
cially  their  representatives  in  Congress,  labor  to  prevent,  and  do  perma 
nently  prevent  the  passage  of  laws  necessary  to  carry  into  effect  a  provision 
of  the  Constitution  particularly  intended  for  the  benefit  of  another  part  of 
the  country,  and  which  is  of  the  highest  importance  to  it,  it  cannot  be 
expected  thatt  that  part  of  the  country  will  long  continue  to  observe  the 
other  constitutional  provisions  made  in  favor  of  the  rest  of  the  country  ; 
because,  gentlemen,  a  disregard  of  constitutional  duty  in  such  a  case,  can 
not  be  brought  within  the  corrective  authority  of  the  judicial  power.  If 
large  portions  of  public  bodies,  against  their  duties  and  their  oaths,  will 
persist  in  refusing  to  execute  the  Constitution,  and  do  in  fact  prevent  such 
execution,  no  remedy  seems  to  be  by  any  application  to  the  Supreme 
Court.  The  case  now  before  the  country  clearly  exemplifies  my  meaning. 
Suppose  the  North  to  have  decided  majorities  in  Congress,  and  suppose 


86  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

these  majorities  to  persist  in  refusing  to  pass  laws  for  carrying  into  effect  the 
clause  of  the  Constitution  which  declares  that  fugitive  slaves  shall  be 
restored,  it  would  be  evident  that  no  judicial  process  could  compel  them 
to  do  their  duty,  and  what  remedy  would  the  South  have  ?  How  absurd 
it  is  to  suppose  that  when  different  parties  enter  into  a  compact  for  certain 
purposes,  either  can  disregard  any  one  provision,  and  expect,  nevertheless, 
the  other  to  observe  the  rest !  I  intend,  for  one,  to  regard  and  maintain 
and  carry  out,  to  the  fullest  extent,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
which  I  have  sworn  to  support  in  all  its  parts  and  all  its  provisions. 
(Loud  cheers.)  It  is  written  in  the  Constitution  :  •-.'  .", 

"  'Ko  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State,  under  the  laws 
thereof,  escaping  into  another  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regula 
tion  therein,  be  discharged  from  such  service  Or  labor,  but  shall  be 
delivered  upon  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may 
be  due.' 

"  That  is  as  much  a  part  of  the  Constitution  as  any  other,  and  as 
equally  binding  and  obligatory  as  any  other  on  all  men,  public  or  private. 
(Applause.)  And  who  denies  this?  None  but  the  abolitionists  of  the 
North.  And  pray  what  is  it  tliey  will  not  deny  ?  They  have  but  one 
idea;  and  it  would  seem  that  these. fanatics  at  the  North  and  the  seces 
sionists  at  the  South  are  putting  their  heads  together  to  devise  means  to 
defeat  the  good  designs  of  honest  and  patriotic  men.  They  act  to  the 
same  end  and  to  the  same  object,  and  the  Constitution  has  to  take  the  fire 
from  both  sides.  I  have  not  hesitated  to  say,  and  I  repeat,  that  if  the 
Northern  States  refuse,  wilfully  and  deliberately,  to  carry  into  effect  that 
part  of  the  Constitution  which  respects  the  restoration  of  fugitive  slaves, 
and  Congress  provide  no  remedy,  the  South  would  no  longer  be  bound  to 
observe  the  compact.  (Immense  applause.)  A  bargain  cannot  be  broken 
on  one  side  and  still  bind  the  other  side.  I  say  to  you,  gentlemen,  in  Vir 
ginia,  as  I  said  on  the  shores  of  Lake  Erie  and  in  the  city  of  Boston,  as  I 
may  say  again,  in  that  city  or  elsewhere  in  the  North,  that  .you  of  the 
South  have  as  much  right  to  receive  your  fugitive  slaves  as  the  North  has 
to  any  of  its  rights  and  privileges  of  navigation  and  commerce.  I  desire 
to  be  understood  here  among  you,  and  throughout  the  country,  and  in 
hopes,  thoughts,  and  feelings  I  profess  to  be  an  American — -altogether  and 
nothing  but  an  American — (long  and  continued  cheering) — and  that  I  am 
for  the  Constitution.  I  am  as  ready  to  fight  and  to  fall  for  the  Constitu 
tional  rights  of  Virginia  as  I  am  for  those  of  Massachusetts.  I  pour  out 
to  you,  gentlemen,  my  whole  heart,  and  I  assure  you  these  are  my  senti 
ments.  (Cheers.)  I  would  no  more  see  a  feather  plucked  unjustly  from 
the  honor  of  Virginia  than  I  would -see  one  so  plucked  from  the  honor  of 
Massachusetts.  (Great  applause.)  It  has  been  said  that  I  have,  by  the 
course  I  have  thought  proper  to  pursue,  displeased  a  portion  of  the  people 
of  Massachusetts.  That  is  true,  and  .if  I  had  dissatisfied  more  of  them, 
what  of  that  ?  (Great  and  continued  applause.) 


ME.  CURTIS'  REVIEW.  87 

"  I  was  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  had  sworn  to  support 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  That  Constitution  made  me  a 
Senator  of  the  United  States,  acting  for  all  the  States,  and  my  vote  was  to 
bind  the  whole  country.  I  was  a  Senator  for  the  whole  country.  (Ap 
plause.)  What  exclusive  regard  had  I  to  pay  to  the  wishes  of  Massachu 
setts  upon  a  question  affecting  the  whole  nation,  and  in  which  my  vote 
was  to  bind  Virginia  as  well  as  Massachusetts  ?  My  vote  was  to  affect  the 
interests  of  the  whole  country,  and  was  to  be  given  on  matters  of  high 
constitutional  character.  I  assure  you,  gentlemen,  I  no  more  respected  the 
instructions  of  Massachusetts  than  I  would  have  respected  those  of  Vir 
ginia.  It  would  be  just  as  reasonable  to  expect  me  to  vote  as  the  particu 
lar  interests  of  Massachusetts  required  as  it  would  fae  to  expect  that,  as 
an  arbitrator,  a  referee,  or  an  umpire  between  two  individuals,  I  was  bound 
to  obey  the  instructions  of  one  of  them. '  (Applause.)  Could  I  do  that  ? 
Have  I  descended,  or  am  I  expected  to  descend,  to  that  level  ?  (Cries  of 
*  Never,  never.  You  are  not  the  man  to  do  it.')  I  hope  not." 

The  reader  now  has  the  whole  context ;  and  he  will  see  that 
in  speaking  of  a  particular  clause  in  the  Constitution  which 
may  properly  enough,  like  many  others  in  it,  be  regarded 
as  founded  in  a  compact  between  different  classes  of  the  States, 
Mr.  Webster  uttered  the  very  familiar  truth  that  if  a  bargain 
is  broken  on  one  side  it  may  be  broken  on  the  other.  But 
how  broken  ?  By  the  supposed  remedy  of  "  constitutional 
secession  ? "  Not  at  all.  It  must  be  broken  by  revolution, 
which  secession  is,  however  provoked.  Mr.  Webster  was  ad 
dressing  himself  to  the  Northern  fanatics,  and  he  tells  them 
that  if  they  undertake  to  treat  the  Constitution  as  a  nullity  in 
the  matter  of  surrendering  fugitive  slaves  the  South  will  have 
the  right,  which  is  the  foundation  of  all  revolutions,  to  break  up 
the  Union  by  making  a  revolution.  At  the  same  time,  he  tells 
the  South,  just  as  plainly,  that  if,  on  imaginary  grievances,  or 
any  grievances  that  can  be  redressed  under  the  Constitution, 
they  "  take  the  first  step  in  the  programme  of  secession " — 
which  means  the  alleged  constitutional  right  of  States  to  with 
draw  from  the  Union — that  step  will  "  be  promptly  met,"  and 
that  he  will  not  remain  an  hour  in  any  administration  that  does 
not  meet  it  effectually  and  at  once.  The  distinction  is  palpable, 
and  it  should  not  have  been  overlooked  by  Mr.  Stephens.  Still 
less  should  he  have  overlooked  the  following  correspondence, 
which  was  published  in  the  newspapers,  at  the  time,  and  which 


88  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

ought  effectually  to  end  all  controversy  about  Mr.  Webster's 
later  or  earlier  opinions  as  to  the  character  of  the  Constitution  : 


[FROM  A  CITIZEN  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA  TO  MR.  WEBSTER.  ] 

Hon.  DANIEL  WEBSTER  : 

DEAR  SIR:  The  question  of  the  right  of  a  State  to  secede  from  the 
Union  is,  as  you  are  doubtless  aware,  producing  at  this  time,  in  this  part 
of  the  Union,  no  inconsiderable  degree  of  excitement.  And  as  it  is  a 
question  in  which  every  free  American  is  directly  concerned,  a  question 
upon  which  every  fre*e  American  should  be  correctly  informed,  as  upon  its 
decision  may  depend  the  future  prosperity  and  happiness  or  misfortune 
and  ruin  of  this  great  country ;  and  believing,  as  I  do,  that  from  your  inti 
mate  acquaintance  with  the  principles  upon  which  our  government  is 
based,  and  the  operation  of  all  of  its  machinery,  you  are  entirely  compe 
tent  to  give  upon  this,  as  upon  all  other  questions  of  like  character,  cor 
rect  information ;  and  being  anxious  myself,  as  many  others  are,  to  possess 
correct  views  with  regard  to  the  subject,  I  desire  you,  valuable  as  I  know 
your  time  to  be,  to  devote  a  moment  in  giving  an  answer  to  the  following 
interrogatory :  '  Do  you  believe  that  a  State  has  a  right  to  secede  from 
the  Union  ? '  By  answering  this  question,  sir,  you  will  confer  a  favor  upon 
many  of  your  countrymen  here,  who  believe,  as  I  do,  that  an  opinion  of 
yours,  thus  expressed,  would  go  very  far  towards  quieting  the  excitement 
that  the  agitation  of  this  subject  has  produced  in  this  section  of  the  Union. 
With  profound  admiration  for  your  character  as  an  American  statesman, 
and  sincere  regard  for  you  as  an  American  citizen, 
I  am,  Sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

July  20,  1851. 

[MR.  WEBSTER'S  ANSWER.] 

August  1,  1851. 

DEAR  SIR:  I  have  received  your  letter  of  the  20th  July.  The  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States  recognizes  no  right-  of  secession,  as  existing 
in  the  people  of  any  one  State  or  any  number  of  States.  It  is  not  a  limited 
confederation,  but  a  government ;  and  it  proceeds  upon  the  idea  that  it  is 
to  be  perpetual,  like  other  forms  of  government,  subject  only  to  be  dis 
solved  by  revolution.  I  confess  I  can  form  no  idea  of  secession  but  as  the 
result  of  a  revolutionary  movement.  How  is  it  possible,  for  instance,  that 
South  Carolina  should  secede  and  establish  a  government  foreign  to  that 
of  the  United  States,  thus  dividing  Georgia,  which  does  not  secede,  from 
the  rest  of  the  Union  ?  Depend  upon  it,  my  dear  sir,  that  the  secession 
of  any  one  State  would  be  but  the  first  step  in  a  process  which  must 
inevitably  break  up  the  entire  Union  into  more  or  fewer  parts.  What  I 
said  at  Capon  Springs  was  an  argument  addressed  to  the  North,  and 


MR.  CURTIS'  REVIEW.      .  89 

intended  to  convince  the  North  that  if,  by  its  superiority  of  numbers,  it 
should  defeat  the  operation  of  a  plain,  undoubted,  and  undeniable  injunc 
tion  of  the  Constitution,  intended  for  the  especial  protection  of  the  South, 
such  a  proceeding  must  necessarily  end  in  the  breaking  up  of  the  govern 
ment  :  that  is  to  say,  in  a  revolution. 

I  am,  clear  sir,  with  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

DANIEL  WEBSTEK. 

I  have  tlms  gone  over  the  proofs  adduced  by  Mr.  Stephens 
to  show  that  Mr.  Webster  had  changed  his  opinions ;  and  have 
made  it  plain,  I  trust,  that  what  he  said  in  1839  or  1851,  is 
entirely  consistent  with  his  theory  of  the  Constitution  as  main 
tained  in  1830-33.  Both  he  and  Mr.  Calhoun  held  the  States 
to  be  sovereign  political  communities ;  but  the  point  at  which 
they  diverged  from  each  other,  and  in  consequence  of  which 
divergence  they  never  could  unite,  was  this :  that  Mr.  Webster 
held  the  grant  of  political  powers  embraced  in  the  Constitution 
to  be  perpetual  and  irrevocable,  constituting  a  government 
proper,  to  the  extent  of  those  powers,  by  the  establishment  of  a 
fundamental  law,  which  rests  on  the  same  obligations  and  sanc 
tions  which  are  the  support  of  all  law ;  whereas  Mr.  Calhoun 
held  that  the  powers  of  the  Constitution  were  only  delegated 
by  the  States  to  an  agent,  and  could  be  resumed  at  any  time 
when  the  sovereign  who  delegated  them  sees  fit,  for  cause  of 
which  he  is  to  judge,  to  withdraw  them.  It  is  perfectly  easy  to 
see  that  this  difference  of  view  springs  from  opposite  opinions 
respecting  the  divisibility  of  sovereign  powers.  It  has  always 
been  a  dogma  of  the  South  Carolina  school  that  sovereignty  is 
indivisible — incapable  of  being  granted  away  in  part  and  in  part 
reserved ;  that  it  is  a  unit,  and  must  be  wholly  retained  or 
wholly  surrendered.  On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  "Webster  and  all 
those  before  him  or  after  him,  who  have  regarded  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States  as  something  more  than  a  mere  federal 
league  or  a  federal  compact  between  independent  States,  have 
always  held  that  sovereign  powers  are  capable  of  division ;  that 
a  part  can  be  granted  in  fee  and  the  residue  can  be  retained, 
and  that  thus  there  is  in  this  country,  by  the  grants  of  the  Con 
stitution,  a  national  sovereignty  of  a  limited  character,  and  by 
the  reservations  impliedly  made  and  expressly  declared  a  separate 
State  sovereignty  which  embraces  every  political  power  not 


90  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

enumerated  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Which 
ever  of  the  theories  is  the  correct  one,  they  agree  in  attributing 
independent  sovereignty  to  the  States  in  respect  to  their  re 
served  powers.  They  differ  only  in  respect  to  the  legal  capacity 
of  the  States,  under  the  Constitution,  to  withdraw  or  resume 
the  powers  conferred  by  their  people  on  the  government  of  the 
United  States.  Mr.  Webster  never  denied  that  the  States,  in 
their  original  capacities,  could  break  up  the  Union  by  a  revolu 
tion  ;  but  he  denied  that  they  could  make  a  legal  secession  from 
the  Union  as  a  right  resulting  to  them  from  the  nature  and 
intent  of  the  Constitution.  On  the  very  last  occasion  on  which 
he  referred  to  this  subject  in  the  Senate  (March,  1850,)  he  said : 

"I  hold  that  the  breaking  up  of  this  Union  by  any  such  thing  as 
voluntary  secession  of  States  is  impossible.  I  know  that  the  Union  can 
be  broken  as  other  governments  have  been ;  and  I  admit  that  there  may 
be  such  a  degree  of  oppression  by  one  part,  being  the  majority,  upon  the 
minority,  as  will  warrant  resistance  and  forcible  severance.  That  is  revo 
lution.  On  that  ultimate  right  of  revolution  I  have  not  been  speaking ;  I 
know  that  law  of  necessity  does  exist.  I  forbear  from  going  further,  be 
cause  I  do  not  wish  to  run  into  discussion  upon  the  nature  of  this  govern 
ment.  The  honorable  member  and  myself  have  broken  lances  sufficiently 
often  heretofore." 

Mr.  CALHOUN  (in  his  seat) — "  I  do  not  desire  it  now." 
Mr.  WEBSTER — "  I  presume  the  honorable  Senator  does  not  desire  it 
now.     I  have  quite  as  little  desire  as  he." 

This  occurred  in  a  colloquy  after  the  close  of  Mr.  Webster's 
speech  of  March  7,  1850.  Does  it  look  as  if  he  had  changed 
his  opinions  since  1830  or  1833  ?  It  is  the  very  essence  of  what 
he  said  in  those  years  :  a  denial  of  that  uncontrolled  and  unim 
paired  State  sovereignty  on  which  the  constitutional  right  of 
secession  is  founded,  and  an  admission  that  the  States  can  make 
a  revolution  if  they  are  subjected  to  intolerable  oppression. 


MR.   STEPHENS'  REPLY  TO  MR.   CURTIS.  91 


II. — ME.  STEPHENS'  KEPLY, 

LIBERTY  HALL,  ) 

CBAWFORDVILLE,  GEORGIA,  August  31,  1869,  \ 

Messrs.  Editors  of  the  N.  T.  World: 

You  will,  I  trust,  allow,  me  space  enough  in  your  columns 
to  reply  to  the  article  of  Mr.  George  T.  Curtis  in  your  issue  of 
the  23d  inst.,  which  reached  me  only  a  few  days  ago.  If  Mr. 
Curtis  had  given  close  attention  to  the  language  and  the  due 
import  of  the  words  used  in  the  text  of  that  part  of  the  bookhe 
undertook  to  review,  it  seems  to  me  he  would  have  been  relieved 
from  the  great  astonishment  he  expresses  at  it,  as  well  as  from 
the  no  very  small  labor  he  has  bestowed  upon  an  attempted 
refutation  of  the  positions  therein  maintained.  He  must  cer 
tainly  be  quite  as  "unfortunate"  a  reader  as  he  imagines  me  to 
be  a  " historian"  if  he  perceives  in  any  thing  said  by  me  upon 
the  subject  the  slightest  ground  for  supposing  that  I  intended 
even  to  intimate  or  suggest  that  Mr.  Webster,  in  the  later  years 
of  his  life,  or  at  any  time,  had  so  far  changed  or  modified  any 
of  his  previous  opinions  "respecting  the  nature  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  as  to  become  a  convert  or  almost  a  convert,"  to  the  doc 
trine  of  "  State  Secession  from  the  Union  as  a  Right,  under  the 
Constitution."  Certainly  nothing  he  quotes  from  me  can  prop 
erly  bear  any  such  construction,  and  just  as  certainly  nothing 
said  by  me,  which  he  has  'not  quoted,  can  bear,  any  such  con 
struction. 

His  quotations  are  as  follows  : 

"Mr.  Stephens  observes  (p.  387)  : 

"  '  The  power  and  force  of  this  speech  (Mr.  Calhoun's)  must  have  been 
felt  by  Mr.  Webster  himself.  He  was  a  man  of  too  much  reason  and  logic 
not  to  have  felt  it.  This  opinion  I  am  more  inclined  to  from  the  fact  that 
he  not  only  did  not  attempt  a  general  reply  to  it  at  the  time,  but  from  the 
further  fact  that  in  after  life  he  certainly,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  greatly 
modified  the  opinions  held  by  him  in  that  debate.' 

"In  the  next  chapter  Mr.  Stephens'  interlocutor  having  called  for 
proofs,  he  proceeds  to  give  them.  He  then  (p.  405)  after  citing,  as  the 
latest  evidence,  a  speech  made  by  Mr.  Webster  in  1851,  observes : 

"  '  That  this  speech  shows  a  modification  of-  the  opinions  expressed  in 
his  speech  of  1833,  must  be  admitted  by  all.  He  had  grown  older  and 


92  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

wiser.  The  speccli  of  1851  was  in  his  maturer  years,  after  the  nature  of 
the  Government  had  been  more  fully  discussed  by  the  men  of  his  own 
generation  than  it  had  been  in  1830  and  1833.  He  was  too  great  a  man, 
and  had  too  great  an  intellect  not  to  see  the  truth  when  it  was  presented, 
and  he  was  too  honest  and  too  patriotic  a  man  not  to  proclaim  the  truth 
when  he  saw  it,  even  to  an  unwilling  people.' " 

Is  there  any  thing  in  either  of  these  even  intimating  or 
suggesting  that  Mr.  Webster  had  changed  his  opinions  upon 
the  question  of  State  secession  in  any  way,  either  under  the 
Constitution  or  as  a  revolutionary  right  f  The  citations  made 
by  me  from  his  speech  before  the  Supreme  Court,  in  1839,  and 
his  letter  to  the  Barings  the  same  year,  as  well  as  the  citation 
from,  his  speech  in  1851 — all  of  which  are  admitted  by  Mr. 
Curtis  to  be  correct,  and  which  are  reproduced  by  himself — were 
not  made  with  the  view  to  show  that  Mr.  Webster  favored 
secession  as  a  constitutional  remedy  for  wrongs  of  any  sort,  or 
that  he  was  not  opposed  to  any  such  remedy  either  theoretically 
or  practically ;  nor  was  any  such  use  or  application  made  of  them 
by  me.  Secession  was  not  the  point  in  issue  between  the  col- 
loquists  at  the  time.  That  was  the  isolated  question,  whether 
or  not  the  Constitution  was  a  compact  between  sovereign  States. 

For  a  clear  -understanding  of  the  whole  subject,  and  to  enable 
your  readers  to  judge  correctly  how  far  Mr.  Curtis  has  been 
successful  in  detecting  any  error  in  my  statements,  or  in  refut 
ing  any  assertions  of  mine  in  the  premises,  it  is  proper  that  they 
should  know  not  only  what  I  said  but  the  connection  in  which 
it  was  said.  Then,  let  it  be  distinctly  understood  that  the  fact 
at  issue  between  the  colloquists,  at  the  time  the  remarks  about 
the  modification  of  Mr.  Webster's  opinions  were  made,  was 
simply  whether  the  Constitution  was  a  Compact  between  the 
States,  as  distinct,  separate  sovereign  political  bodies.  This 
was  one  point,  first  to  be  clearly  established  beyond  all  doitbt 
and  question,  in  the  line  of  my  argument:  I  had  maintained 
that  it  was.  Professor  Norton  had  read  Mr.  Webster's  great 
speech  in  the  Senate  in  1833,  on  Mr.  Calhoun's  resolutions,-  to 
show  that  it  was  not.  This  argument,  he  insisted,  conclusively 
showed  that  the  Constitution  was  not  a  Compact  between  Sover 
eign  States.  Let  it  also  be  understood  that  the  first  of  Mr.  Cal 
houn's  resolutions,  against  which  all  Mr.  Webster's  powers 


MR.   STEPHENS'  REPLY  TO  MR.   CURTIS.  93 

were  put  forth  in  that  speech,  according  to  his  own  view,  and 
as  stated  by  him  in  the  speech,  embraced  this  doctrine : 

"  That  the  political  system  under  which  we  live,  and  under  which 
Congress  is  now  assembled,  is  a  Compact,  to  which  the  people  of  the 
several  States,  as  separate  and  sovereign  communities,  are  the  parties." 

Let  your  readers  also  bear  in  mind  that  the  doctrine  so  set 
forth  in  this  resolution,  as  Mr.  "Webster  understood  it,  he  op 
posed  toto  cwlo — root  and  branch.  (See  Con.  View  of  the  Late 
War  between  the  States,  Yol.  I.,  p.  301.)  In  direct  opposition 
to  it  he  planted  himself  upon  the  following  proposition  : 

"  That  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  not  a  league,  confed 
eracy,  or  compact  between  the  people  of  the  several  States  in  their  sover 
eign  capacities,  but  a  government  proper,  founded  on  the  adoption  of  the 
people,  and  creating  direct  relations  between  itself  and  individuals." 

In  his  speech  he  broadly  and  unequivocally  denied  that  the 
"  Constitution  was  a  compact  between  the  States,"  holding  that 
if  "our  instrument  of  government  be  a  constitution,  then 
for  that  very  reason,  it  cannot  be  a  compact  between  sover 
eigns."  "A  constitution  of  Government,"  said  he,  "and  a 
compact  between  sovereign  powers  being  things  essentially  un 
like  in  their  very  natures,  and  incapable  of  ever  being  the 
same."  The  line  of  argument  in  the  speech  was  to  show  that 
the  Federative  character  of  the  Government,  as  it  had  existed 
under  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  had  been  entirely  done 
away  with  by  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution ;  and  that  a 
National  Government,  without  any  sort  of  Federal  alliance,  had 
been  thereby  established.  He  maintained  that  the  Union  es 
tablished  under  the  Constitution  was  no  longer  a  union  of 
States,  but  a  union  of  the  whole  people  of  all  the  States  in  one 
body  politic.  Among  other  things  on  this  point,  he  said,  with 
emphasis : 

"  You  will  observe,  sir,  that  it  is  the  people,  and  not  the  States,  wlio 
have  entered  into  this  compact :  and  it  is  the  people  of  all  the  United 
States.  These  conventions,  by  this  form  of  expression,  meant  merely  to 
say  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  had,  by  the  blessing  of  Provi 
dence,  enjoyed  the  opportunity  of  establishing  a  new  Constitution  founded 
in  the  consent  of  the  people.  This  consent  of  the  people  has  been  called, 
by  European  writers,  the  social  compact ;  and,  in  conformity  to  this  com- 


94  THE  EEVIEWEES  EEVIEWED. 

mon  mode  of  expression,  these  conventions  speak  of  that  assent,  on  which 
the  new  Constitution  was  to  rest,  as  an  explicit  and  solemn  compact,  not 
which  the  States  had  entered  into  with  each  other,  but  which  the  people 
of  the  United  States  had  entered  into. 

"  Finally,  sir,  how  can  any  man  get  over  the  words  of  the  Constitution 
itself?  iWe^  the  people  of  the  United  States,  do  ordain  and  establish  this  Con 
stitution.'  Th£se  words  must  cease  to  be  a  part  of  the  Constitution,  they 
must  be  obliterated  from  the  parchment  on  .which  they  are  written,  before 
any  human  ingenuity  or  human  argument  can  remove  the  popular  basis 
on  which  that  Constitution  rests,  and  turn  the  instrument  into  a  mere  com 
pact  between  sovereign  States ! " 

This  speech,  be  it  remembered,  had  just  been  read  by  Pro 
fessor  Norton,  as  a  conclusive  refutation  of  my  position  in  the 
Colloquies;  and  after  some  comments  of  my  own  upon  it  (seo 
page  337),  for  a  full  answer  to  it,  following  his  example,  I  had 
read  Mr.  Calhoun' s  speech  in  reply.  At  the  close  of  this  the 
colloquy  proceeds  as  follows,  page  387 : 

"  This  is  quite  enough,"  said  I,  "  of  Mr.  Calhoun' s  reply.  I  have  read 
all  of  it  that  bears  directly  upon  the  main  points  in  issue  between  them. 
On  these  points  never  was  a  man  more  completely  answered  than  Mr. 
Webster  was.  The  argument  is  a  crusher,  an  extinguisher,  an  annihila- 
tor!" 

"Professor  NORTON — ' "Where  is  Mr.  Webster's  rejoinder? ' " 

"  Mr.  STEPHENS — '  He  made  none.  He  followed  with  a  few  remarks 
only,  disavowing  any  personal  unkind  feelings  to  Mr.  Calhoun,  explaining 
how  he  had  used  the  term  "  Constitutional  Compact,"  in  1830 ;  and  at 
tempting  to  parry  one  or  two  of  the  blows,  but  he  never  made  any  regular 
set  reply  or  rejoinder.  He  never  came  back  at  his  opponent  at  all  on  the 
real  question  at  issue.  Mr.  Calhoun  stood  master  of  the  arena.  This 
speech  of  his  was  not  answered  then ;  it  has  not  been  answered  since.;  and, 
in  my  judgment,  never  will  be  or  can  be  answered  while  truth  has  its 
legitimate  influence  and  reason  controls  the  judgment  of  men!  The 
power  and  force  of  this  speech  must  have  been  felt  by  Mr.  Webster  him 
self.  He  was  a  man  of  too  much  reason  and  logic  not  to  have  felt  it. 
This  opinion  I  am  the  more  inclined  to  from  the  fact  that  he  not  only  did 
not  attempt  a  general  reply  to  it  at  the  time,  but  from  the  further  fact 
that  in  after  life  he  certainly,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  greatly  modified  the 
opinions  held  by  him  in  that  debate.' " 

"Professor  NORTON—'  To  what  do  you  refer  ?.' 

"  Mr.  STEPHENS — '  I  refer  specially  to  a  speech  made  by  him  before  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  1839,  and  to  his  speech  at  Capon 
Springs,  in  Virginia,  in  1851,  as  well  as  some  other  matters.' " 


ME.   STEPHENS'  REPLY  TO  ME.   CURTIS.  95 

Then  follow  the  citations  quoted  by  Mr.  Curtis  from  the 
speech  before  the  Supreme  Court,  from  the  letter  to  the  Bar 
ings,  and  from  the  Capon  Springs  speech.  These  are  the 
essential  facts  of  the  case ;  and  from  which  it  clearly  appears 
that  the  sole  object  in  view  in  these  citations  was  to  show,  as  I 
thought  they  did,  and  still  think  they  do,  great  modifications^ 
to  say  the  least  of  it,  of  the  opinions  of  Mr.  Webster  as  ex 
pressed  in  the  speech  referred  to,  and  on  the  main  point  then 
at  issue  between  him  and  Mr.  Calhoun,  and  not  to  show  that 
Mr.  Webster  had  become  "  a  convert "  to  the  doctrine  of  State 
Secession  in  any  form.  Mr.  Curtis  thinks  that  these  citations 
show  no  such  modification.  Be  it  so.  This  is  a  matter  of  opin 
ion  only.  An  intelligent  public  can  judge  of  our  respective 
opinions  on  the  subject.  Mr.  Webster,  in  his  argument  before 
the  Supreme  Court,  did  certainly  say : 

"  In  respect  to  this  law  of  comity,  it  is  said  States  are  not  nations ; 
they  have  no  national  sovereignty;  a  sort  of  residuum  of  sovereignty  is  all 
that  remains  to  them.  The  national  sovereignty,  it  is  said,  is  conferred  on 
this  Government,  and  part  of  the  municipal  sovereignty.  The  rest  of  the 
municipal  sovereignty  belongs  to  the  States.  Notwithstanding  the  respect 
which  I  entertain  for  the  learned  judge  who  presided  in  that  Court,  I  can 
not  follow  in  the  train  of  Ms  argument.  .  .  .  Suppose  that 
this  Constitution  had  said,  in  terms  after  the  language  of  the  Court  be 
low,  all  national  sovereignty  shall  belong  to  the  United  States ;  all  muni 
cipal  sovereignty  to  the  several  States.  I  will  say  that,  however  clear, 
however  distinct,  such  a  definition  may  appear  to  those  who  use  it,  the 
employment  of  it  in  the  Constitution  would  only  have  led  to  utter  con 
fusion  and  uncertainty.  /  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  the  States  have  no 
national  sovereignty,  'y  v'V^  *•-  .~  ,>r'*~'  The  term  'sovereignty'  does  not 
occur  in  the  Constitution  at  all.  The  Constitution  treats  States  as  States, 
and  the  United  States  as  the  United  States ;  and,  by  a  careful  enumeration, 
declares  all  the  powers  that  are  granted  to  the  United  States,  and  all  the 
rest  are  reserved  to  the  States.  :  .  •  v  "  .  /  The  States  of  this  Union, 
as  States,  are  subject  to  all  the  voluntary  and  customary  laws  of  nations." 

These  utterances  were  made  by  Mr.  Webster  in  1839,  six 
years  after  the  speech  in  1833  ;  the  italics  are  mine.  Mr.  Cur 
tis,  in  a  note  to  his  article,  in  his  reproduction  of  my  quotation, 
says  that  he  preserved  my  italics ;  but  somehow  or  other  my 
italics  were  not  preserved  in  his  republication,  as  any  one  can 
see  by  a  reference  to  the  book.  "Not  a  single  sentence  italicized 


96  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

by  me  is  italicized  in  Iris  republication ;  nor  did  I  put  in  italics 
a  single  sentence  printed  in  italics,  in  that  republication.  This 
remark  is  made  in  passing,  to  let  your  readers  know  that  I  place 
no  stress  whatever  upon  those  portions  of  the  speech  which  in 
his  republication  were  thus  italicized,  while  I  did  place  great 
stress  upon  those  that  I  had  thus  marked.  In  my  comments  on 
this  speech  I  said  (p.  392) : 

"  In  this  carefully  prepared  argument  Mr.  Webster  significantly  says 
that  in  the  Constitution  nothing  is  said  about  sovereignty.  This  is  all 
important.  He  admitted,  in  the  debate  with  Mr.  Calhoun,  that  the  States 
were  sovereign  before  the  Constitution  was  adopted.  In  this  argument  he 
holds  the  position  that  the  powers  delegated  to  the  United  States  in  the 
Constitution  are  specific  and  limited,  and  that  all  not  delegated  are  re 
served  to  the  States.  He  states  distinctly  that  the  Constitution  treats  the 
States  as  States.  If  the  States,  then,  were  sovereign  anterior  to  the  Con 
stitution,  and  sovereignty  was  not  delegated  or  parted  with  by  them  in  it 
(as  it  could  not  have  been,  as  the  Constitution  is  silent  upon  the  subject), 
then,  of  course,  it  is  still  reserved  to  the  States.  If  the  sovereignty  of  the 
States  was  not  delegated  or  parted  with  in  the  Constitution,  was  it  not  of 
necessity  retained  by  them  ?  He  clearly  so  argues.  This  is  the  inevitable 
conclusion  from  the  rules  of  inexorable  logic.  The  decision  of  the  Su 
preme  Court  in  this  case  was  on  the  line  of  his  argument,  and  fully  sus 
tained  his  position." 

The  Sovereignty  of  the  States  was  one  of  the  points  in  issue 
between  him  and  Mr.  Calhoun.  I  did  think,  and  still  think, 
the  expressions  in  this  speech  showed  a  great  modification  of  his 
views  as  presented  in  1833.  But  Mr.  Curtis  says : 

"  I  presume  that  Mr.  Webster  would  have  been  very  much  astonished 
if,  on  the  argument  of  this  case,  one  of  his  opponents  had  risen  and  said : 
*  So,  then,  sir,  it  appears  that  you  have  modified  your  opinions  about  the 
nature  of  the  general  government,  for  you  have  distinctly  said  that  the 
States  are  nations ;  that  they  are  sovereign ;  that  the  Constitution  treats 
the  States  as  States,  and,  if  they  are  sovereign  States,  you  must  have 
changed  your  views  as  you  expressed  them  in  the  Senate  in  1830  and  1S33.7 
I  fancy  that  Mr.  Webster  would  have  answered  thus : 

"  '  When  did  I  ever  deny  that  the  States  are  independent  political  com 
munities,  with  full  attributes  of  sovereignty  in  respect  to  all  the  powers 
of  government  not  embraced  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and 
not  therein  expressly  restricted  ?  Be  pleased  to  observe,  sir,  that  the  idea 
that  a'  State  cannot  part  with  a  portion  of  its  sovereignty  and  remain  a 


MR.  STEPHENS'  EEPLY  TO  MR.  CURTIS.       97 

State  may  be  yours,  but  it  is  not  mine.  It  has  always  been  my  doctrine, 
and  is  still,  that  the  States  did  this  very  thing  when  they  ratified  the  Con 
stitution  ;  that  they  parted  with  a  portion  of  their  sovereignty  and  yet 
remained  States?  " 

Let  me  say  to  Mr.  Curtis,  if  I  had  been  the  person  to  whom 
Mr.  Webster  had  offered  such  a  defense  of  himself,  I  should 
have  said  to  him  in  reply  : 

"  Why,  Mr.  Webster,  how  can  you  say  that  c  it  has  always 
been  your  doctrine,  and  is  still,  that  the  States  did  this  very 
thing  when  they  ratified  the  Constitution,'  in  the  face  of  the 
emphatic  declaration  in  your  speech  on  Mr.  Calhoun's  resolu-* 
tions,  that  the  Constitution  was  not  ratified  by  tlw States  at  all? 
That  the  States  as  States  had  nothing  to  do  with  it  ?  You  then 
said :  '  You  will  observe,  sir,  that  it  is  the  people  and  not  the 
States,  who  have  entered  into  this  compact ;  and  it  is  the  people 
of  all  the  United  States ' — not  the  people  of  the  States  acting 
separately  as  distinct  political  bodies,  much  less  nations — who 
ratified  it ;  that  it  was  the  people  of  the  whole  country  united 
as  one  nation,  and  that  no  ( human  ingenuity  or  human  argu 
ment  '  could  '  turn  the  instrument  into  a  mere  compact  between 
sovereign  States.' 

"  Your  reply  to  my  remark,  as  well  as  your  whole  argument 
before  the  court,  is  based  upon  the  doctrine  that  our  Union  is 
one  of  States,  perfect  States,  or  Nations,  as  you  call  them,  joined 
together  by  some  sort  of  agreement  or  compact  wherein  are 
distinctly  set  forth  certain  specific  powers  of  government  care 
fully  enumerated,  which  are  to  be  exercised  by  the  general  gov 
ernment  within  their  respective  jurisdiction.  You  quote  Yat- 
tel  to  show  how  States  may  be  thus  united  and  still  be  l  as  much 
component  parts  ot  the  laws  of  nations  as  any  others.'  This 
author  does  very  clearly  set  forth  the  nature  of  the  union  of 
these  States  as  I  now  understand  you  to  hold  it  to  be.  He  says 
pointedly : 

" '  Several  sovereign  independent  States  may  unite  themselves  together 
by  a  perpetual  Confederacy  without  ceasing  each  to  be  individually  a  per 
fect  State.  They  will  together  constitute  a  Federal  republic  ;  their  joint 
deliberations  will  not  impair  the  sovereignty  of  each,  though  they  may  in 
certain  respects  put  some  restraint  on  the  exercise  of  it  in  virtue  of  volun 
tary  engagements.' 


98  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

"  This  clearly  shows  the  nature  of  our  Union,  as  I  under 
stand  you  now  hold  it  to  be.  But  is  not  this  view  of  it  a  great 
modification  of  the  view  entertained  when  you  maintained  in 
your  speech  of  1833  that  it  was  not  a  Confederacy  or  Federal 
Republic  in  any  sense  whatever  ?  How  is  this  ?  "Will  you  please 
to  explain  further? " 

Will  Mr.  Curtis,  as  Mr.  Webster's  representative,  be  pleased 
to  give  us  what  answer  he  imagines  Mr.  Webster  could  give  to 
this  reply  without  admitting  a  modification  of  his  views  ? 

But  to  proceed.  It  is  an  admitted  fact  that  Mr.  Webster  did 
say  in  his  letter  to  the  Barings,  in  1839,  in  speaking  of  the 
States  of  this  Union :  "  Every  State  is  an  independent  sovereign 
political  community,  except  in  so  far  as  certain  powers  which 
otherwise  it  might  have  exercised  have  been  conferred  on  a  gen 
eral  government,  established  under  a  written  constitution,  and 
exerting  its  authority  over  the  people  of  all  the  States.  This 
general  government  is  a  limited  government.  Its  powers  are 
specific  and  enumerated.  All  powers  not  conferred  upon  it  still 
remain  with,  the  States  and  with  the  people." 

Mr.  Curtis  says  "  It  would  be  difficult  to  describe  our  politi 
cal  system  with  a  greater  precision  or  more  correctly  than  Mr. 
"Webster  stated  in  this  opinion."  "With.  Mr.  Curtis  in  this  view 
I  concur  thoroughly.  In  as  few  words  it  would  be  difficult  to 
give  a  more  correct  or  accurate  idea  of  its  general  principles. 
But  let  me  ask  Mr.  Curtis,  or  any  intelligent  man,  wherein  is 
there  any  essential  or  conceivable  difference  between  the  nature 
or  character  of  the  government  thus  described  and  the  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States  under  their  first  Articles  of  Union, 
the  words  of  one  of  these  Articles  being : 

"Each  State  retains  its  sovereignty,  freedom,  and  independence,  and 
every  power,  jurisdiction,  and  right,  which  is  not  by  this  Confederation 
expressly  delegated  to  the  United  States,  in  Congress  assembled." 

The  only  possible  difference  is  as  to  the  extent  of  the  powers 
delegated  and  the  machinery  for  their  exercise.  Does  Mr.  Cur 
tis  see  no  modification  of  the  views  expressed  in  this  letter 
from  those  presented  in  Mr.  Webster's  first  proposition  as  to 
the  nature  of  our  government  in  1833,  above  set  forth,  wherein 


MR.  STEPHENS'  EEPLY  TO  MR.   CURTIS.  99 

he  maintained  that  ours  was  not  a  Confederacy  of  any  sort? 
Could  such  a  government  as  he  describes  in  his  letter  to  the 
Barings  be  instituted  without  some  agreement  or  compact  be 
tween  the  members  of  it  or  parties  to  it,  settling  by  enumera 
tion  the  specific  powers  parted  with  by  them  ?  In  that  speech 
he  declared  there  was  no  such  compact.  The  views,  therefore, 
expressed  in  1839  by  him  do  appear  to  me  to  be  considerably 
modified  from  those  expressed  by  him  on  the  same  subject  in 
1833.  If  Mr.  Curtis  thinks  differently,  so  be  it.  It  is  only  a 
difference  of  opinion  between  us.  t 

Again.  It  is  an  admitted  fact  that  Mr.  "Webster,  in  his 
speech  at  Capon  Springs,  in  1851,  did  use  the  following  lan 
guage  : 

"  I  have  not  hesitated  to  say,  and  I  repeat,  that  if  the  Northern  States 
refuse,  wilfully  and  deliberately,  to  carry  into  effect  that  part  of  the  Con 
stitution  which  respects  the  restoration  of  fugitive  slaves,  and  Congress 
provide  no  remedy,  the  South  would  no  longer  be  bound  to  observe  the 
compact.  A  bargain  cannot  be  broken  on  one  side  and  still  bind  the 
other  side." 

In  the  previous  part  of  the  same  speech  it  is  admitted  that 
he  said : 

"  How  absurd  it  is  to  suppose  that  when  different  parties  enter  into  a 
compact  for  certain  purposes  either  can  disregard  any  one  provision,  and 
expect,  nevertheless,  the  other  to  observe  the  rest !  I  intend,  for  one,  to 
regard,  and  maintain,  and  carry  out,  to  the  fullest  extent,  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  which  I  have  sworn  to  support  in  all  its  parts  and 
all  its  provisions." 

In  this  speech  I  maintain  that  Mr.  "Webster  fully  admitted 
the  Constitution  to  be  a  Compact  between  the  States  of  the 
Union,  and  recognized  the  obligation  of  each  State  as  well  as 
his  own  to  observe  its  provisions  as  such.  This  did  seem  to 
me  to  be  a  very  great  modification  of  his  views  on  the  same 
subject  as  expressed  in  1833,  when  all  his  powers  were  put 
forth  to  show  that  it  was  not  a  Compact  between  the  States. 
The  views  expressed  in  this  speech  amount,  in  my  opinion,  to 
an  admission  in  effect  of  all  that  was  set  forth  in  Mr.  Calhoun's 
first  resolution,  against  which  Mr.  Webster's  speech  in  1833 
was  chiefly  directed.  Let  Mr.  Curtis,  or  any  one  else,  read  that 


100  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

resolution  as  I  have  given  it  above,  as  it  was  stated  in  substance 
by  Mr.  Webster  himself,  and  then  read  that  part  of  his  Capon 
Springs  speech,  and  point  out  any  essential  difference  between 
them  if  he  can.  If  Mr.  Curtis  sees  no  modification,  no  differ 
ence  between  the  doctrine  expressed  in  the  Capon  Springs 
speech  and  that  set  forth  by  Mr.  "Webster  in  his  resolution 
above  cited,  on  which  he  planted  himself  in  his  great  speech  of 
1833,  to  say  nothing  farther  of  the  argument  in  the  body  of 
that  speech,  wherein  he  maintained  that  the  Constitution  was 
not  a  Compact  between  the  States,  then  again  I  say  be  it  so. 
I  thought,  and  still  think,  there  is  a  very  great  modification,  to 
say  the  least  of  it,  of  the  views  in  the  latter  from  the  views  ex 
pressed  in  the  former,  and  directly  upon  the  main  point  at 
issue  between  him  and  Mr.  Calhoun.  That  point  then  at  issue 
on  Mr.  Calhoun's  first  resolution  was  not  nullification  or  seces 
sion,  but  the  isolated  question  whether  the  Constitution  is  a 
Compact  between  the  States. 

My  comments  on  this  speech  appear  in  the  second  of  Mr. 
Curtis'  quotations,  from  the  book  as  above  given.  From  this 
it  appears  that  I  used  it  for  no  such  purpose  as  he  seems  to  im 
agine.  I  did  not  use  it  even  to  show  an  inconsistency  in  Mr. 
Webster,  to  his  discredit.  He. was  a  man  whom  I  greatly 
admired.  Of  this  I  have  given  many  and  abundant  proofs. 
His  memory  I  shall  ever  revere.  His  reputation,  while  in  life, 
I  defended  on  several  occasions  when  unjustly  assailed,  and  I 
am  not  the  less  ready  to  do  the  same  thing  now,  when  he  is  no 
longer  amongst  the  living.  His  fame  and  good  name  belong 
not  exclusively  to  those  of  his  own  bloo'd  or  executors ;  they 
belong  to  the  country,  the  age,  and  to  the  world,  and  should  be 
safe  in  the  hands  of  every  just  and  upright  man.  I  did  believe, 
and  do  believe,  that  he  felt  the  power  of  Mr.  Calhoun's  reply 
to  his  great  argument  made  to  prove  that  the  Constitution  is 
not  a  Compact  between  the  States.  I  have  no  idea,  however, 
that  he  became  a  convert  to  Mr.  Calhoun's  views,  with  the 
logical  sequences  he  claimed  from  his  premises.  On  the  con 
trary,  I  believe  and  feel  well  assured  that  he  did  not ;  but  I  do 
believe  his  own  opinion  on  the  main  question  involved  in  the 
debate  in  1833,  that  is,  the  question  of  the  Constitution  being 


MR.   STEPHENS'  REPLY  TO  MR.   CURTIS.  101 

a  Compact  between  the  States,  underwent  considerable  modi 
fication,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  in  the  after  part  of  his  life.  It 
was  solely  with  a  view  to  show  the  reason  of  this  opinion  of 
mine  that  the  citations  from  his  speeches  and  letter  referred  to 
were  made. 

But  Mr.  Curtis  says  I  am  "singularly  unfortunate,"  as  a 
historian,  in  this,  that  •  I  "  cited  this  Capon  Springs  speech  of 
Mr.  Webster  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  he  had  come  in 
1851  to  regard  the  Constitution  as  a  Compact  between  the 
States,  yet  overlooked  the  passages  in  the  same  speech  which 
show  that  he  did  not  so  regard  it."  If  what  Mr.  Curtis  here 
says  be  correct,  I  am  very  justly  chargeable  with  being  some 
thing  worse  than  an  "  unfortunate  historian."  In  reply  to  the 
criticism,  I  have  this  to  say :  If  there  is  any  thing  in  the  speech 
from  which  the  citation  is  taken  that  goes  to  show  or  tends  to 
show  that  Mr.  "Webster  did  not  mean  just  what  he  said,  and 
just  what  his  words  clearly  import,  and  just  what  I  understood 
him  and  quoted  him  as  meaning,  it  not  only  escaped  my  atten 
tion  when  the  citation  was  made,  but  after  the  most  diligent 
search  through  that  speech  and  the  other  made  at  the  same 
place,  both  of  which  Mr.  Curtis  has  published,  it  still  escapes 
my  search.  I  can  find  nothing  of  the  sort.  I  find,  as  I  found 
when  the  citation  was  made,  a  great  deal  which  conclusively 
shows  that  he  was  utterly  opposed  to  secession  as  a  constitu 
tional  remedy  against  any  supposed  wrongs  on  the  part  of  the 
General  Government ;  but  not  one  word  qualifying  in  the  least 
about  the  Union  being  "  a  union  of  States,"  and  the  Constitu 
tion  being  a  Compact  between  them.  If  Mr.  Curtis  found  any 
thing  of  that  kind  in  either  of  these  speeches,  he  most  unfortu 
nately  failed  to  point  it  out.  The  citation,  therefore,  was  not 
only  pertinent,  but  exceedingly  fortunate  for  my  purpose. 

Another  "  singular  error "  which  Mr.  Curtis  is  pleased  to 
charge  me  with  is  in  relation  to  the  rejoinder  of  Mr.  Webster 
to  Mr.  Calhoun's  speech  in  1833.  I  said  that  Mr.  Webster 
made  no  regular  set  reply  or  rejoinder  to  Mr.  Calhoun.  He 
had  followed  with  a  few  remarks  only,  explaining  and  attempt 
ing  to  parry  one  or  two  of  the  blows.  He  never  came  back  at 
his  opponent  at  all  on  the  real  question  at  issue.  That  he  did 


102  THE  KEYIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

not  make  any  general  reply  Mr.  Curtis  admits,  but  attempts  to 
show,  by  giving  a  history  of  the  debate,  that  it  was  not  called 
for;  that  Mr.  Webster's  speech  was,  in  fact,  a  reply  to  one  from 
Mr.  Calhoun  on  the  same  subject ;  and  Mr.  Calhoun's  speech, 
to  which  I  referred,  was  itself  a  rejoinder  to  Mr.  Webster's, 
which  brought  out  no  new  matter  of  importance,  and  needed 
no  farther  special  notice.  This  seems  to  be  the  object  of  his 
narrative  in  giving  the  history  of  the  debate,  and  in  exposing 
what  he  calls  an  error  of  mine,  l^ow,  the  truth  of  this  matter 
is  just  as  stated  in  the  book.  The  Force  Bill  .was  introduced 
on  the  21st  day  of  January,  1833.  Mr.  Calhoun's  resolutions 
were  introduced  the  next  day.  They  took  their  place  on  the 
table.  The  Force  Bill  was  taken  up  first.  Mr.  Calhoun  spoke 
against  that  on  the  15th  and  16th  of  February.  Immediately 
on  the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Calhoun's  speech  on  the  Force  Bill, 
Mr.  Webster  arose  and  addressed  the  Senate  on  Mr.  Calhoun's 
resolutions,  which  were  not  then  before  them  for  consideration 
(Niletf  Register,  Vol.  xliii.,  App.,  p.  170),  He  devoted  his 
speech  almost  entirely  to  these  resolutions.  He  did  not  in  his 
speech  from  beginning  to  end  allude  specially  to  a  single  posi 
tion  or  argument  of  Mr.  Calhoun's  speech  just  delivered  upon 
the  Force  Bill.  Some  very  general  references  to  it  are  all  that 
he  made.  It  was  on  the  26th  of  February,  when  his  resolutions 
were  before  the  Senate  for  consideration,  that  Mr.  Calhoun  re 
plied  to  Mr.  Webster's  speech  delivered  on  these  resolutions  ten 
days  before.  This  speech  was  made  in  defence  of  his  resolu 
tions  against  the  assault  that  had  been  made  on  them.  It  cov 
ered  ground  never  before  occupied,  and  presented  arguments 
never  before  presented  by  Mr.  Calhoun  in  the  Senate.  On 
these  new  grounds  and  new  arguments  Mr.  Webster  never 
came  back  at  him.  He  did,  I  said,  make  a  few  remarks  at 
tempting  to  parry  some  of  the  blows.  Mr.  Curtis  lias  pub 
lished  the  whole  of  these.  He  thinks,  from  his  account  of  the 
debate,  that  but  little  was  necessary  to  be  said,  and  that  little 
was  said  in  a  "nutshell"  This  "nutshell,"  however,  as  he  calls 
it,  as  your  readers  perceive,  is  just  of  the  character  I  had  repre 
sented  it  to  be !  What  Mr.  Webster  said  in  it  about  "  acces 
sion"  and  his  other  attacks  upon  the  language  of  Mr.  Calhoun's 


MR.   STEPHENS'  EEPLY  TO  ME.   CUETIS.  103 

resolution,  can  be  looked  upon  as  nothing  but  efforts  to  parry. 
Calhoun  had  demolished  him  on  all  these.  The  same  is  true 
of  what  he  said  on  the  resolution  when  modified  by  Mr.  Cal 
houn  to  meet  the  full  demands  of  his  criticism.  The  only  other 
attempted  parry  was  what  he  said  about  Mr.  Calhoun' s  crushing 
argument,  drawn  from  the  7th  Article  of  the  Constitution  itself. 
This  is  in  these  words : 

"  The  ratification  of  the  Conventions  of  nine  States  shall  be  sufficient 
for  the  establishment  of  this  Constitution  BETWEEN  the  States  so  ratifying 
the  same." 

His  rejoinder  to  this,  as  will  be  seen  in  Mr.  Curtis'  article, 
stated  substantially  in  a  "  nutshell,"  amounted  to  this,  and  this 
only;  that  the  words  "between  the  States  so  ratifying"  meant 
between  the  people,  so  ratifying !  Does  Mr.  Curtis  think  that 
this  little  was  all  that  was  necessary  to  be  said  to  sustain  before 
an  intelligent  audience  his  position  "  that  it  was  not  the  States 
but  \hzpeople  who  had  entered  into  the  compact,"  and  not  the 
people  of  the  States  separately,  but  the  people  of  all  the  States  ? 
If  he  does  so  think,  so  let  it  be.  Mr.  Webster,  however,  I  sup 
pose,  thought  this  was  a  very  proper  occasion  on  which  to  ad 
here  to  the  proverb,  "  the  least  said  the  soonest  mended."  Be 
that  also  as  it  may,  I  can  consider  it  as.  nothing  but  a  struggling, 
ineffectual  effort  of  a  strong  man,  as  Mr.  Webster  certainly  was, 
to  hold  his  own  under  the  effects  of  a  stunning  ~blow  !  Whoever 
heard  the  word  between  so  used  ?  Had  his  position  been  cor 
rect,  it  might  have  been  proper  enough  to  declare  that  the 
Constitution  should  be  established  over  m  for  or  by  the  people 
so  ratifying  it  in  nine  States.  But  what  an  unheard-of  inap- 
propriateness  in  the  application  of  a  word  would  it  not  be  to 
speak  of  establishing  a  Constitution  or  any  thing  else  between 
tlie  people  in  a  collective  mass !  He  then  doubtless  felt  the 
force  of  Mirabeau's  remark,  which  in  his  speech  he  had  quoted, 
that  "words  are  things."  He  felt  that  the  word  between  as  it 
here  stands  in  the  Constitution  is  a  real,  a  solid  and  tremendous 
thing !  A  thing,  that  utterly  demolished  the  whole  superstruc 
ture  of  his  argument ! 

Let  me  ask  Mr.  Curtis,  if  this  argument,  to  say  nothing  of 
many  others  urged  by  Mr.  Calhoun  in  his  reply  to  Mr.  Webster, 


104  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

was  not  new  ground^  not  before  occupied  by  him ;  and  then  let 
Mr.  Curtis  say  to  an  intelligent  world,  whether  he  thinks  that 
Mr.  Webster's  "  nutshell "  rejoinder  did  successfully  meet  Mr. 
Calhoun  upon  it  ?  Mr.  Curtis  states  distinctly  that  "he  enters 
into  no  vindication  of  the  opinions  of  Mr.  Webster  as  expressed 
in  1830  and  1833."  Is  he  not  discreet  in  this  ?  For  in  his  own 
History  of  the  Constitution,  has  he  not  himself  utterly  demol 
ished  one  of  the  main  arguments  of  Mr.  Webster,  whether  Mr. 
Calhoun  did  or  not  ?  Mr.  Webster,  as  we  have  seen,  broadly 
asserted  that  the  Constitution  could  not  be  a  Compact  between 
the  States  because  said  he,  "  if  our  instrument  of  government  be 
a  Constitution^  then  for  that  very  reason  it  cannot  be  a  compact 
between  sovereigns  ;  a  constitution  of  government  and  a  com 
pact  between  sovereign  powers  being  things  essentially  unlike 
in  their  very  natures,  and  incapable  of  ever  "being  the  same." 
But  Mr.  Curtis,  in  his  History  of  the  Constitution,  has  shown 
that  the  first  Articles  of  Confederation,  which  were  a  Compact 
between  the  Sovereign  States  then  composing  the  Union,  were 
a  Constitution  of  government  between  the  sovereign  parties 
making  it.  These  articles  of  union  between  these  sovereign 
powers  were,  he  says,  "  the  first  written  Constitution  of  the 
United  States."  (Yol.  i.,  p.  139.)  And  he  further  says  that 
"  the  parties  to  this  instrument  (the  Articles  of  Confederation) 
were  free,  sovereign,  political  communities,  each  possessing 
within  itself  powers  of  legislation  and  government  over  its  own 
citizens,  which  any  political  society  can  possess."  Now,  if 
"  Mr.  Webster  always  knew  his  fame  was  completely  identified 
with  the  doctrine  that  regards  the  Constitution  not  as  a  com 
pact,"  as  Mr.  Curtis  said  he  did,  then  has  he  not  himself  com 
pletely  overthrown  one  of  the  main  pillars  on  which  that  fame 
was  erected  ? 

In  speaking  thus,  I  do  not  mean  to  detract  from  Mr.  Web 
ster's  real  merits,  or  his  true  fame.  Who  could  be  justly  sup 
posed  to  intend  detraction  from  the  fame  of  Lord  Mansfield, 
either  as  a  statesman,  an  orator,  or  a  jurist,  by  stating  that,  on 
one  memorable  occasion,  in  the  House  of  Lords,  he  was  dumb 
founded  by  Lord  Chatham  in  reply  to  one  of  his  most  celebrated 
speeches — that  he  was  for  some  time  silent — and  when  forced 


MR.   STEPHENS'  REPLY  TO  MR.   CURTIS.  105 

up,  laboring  "  under  the  badness  of  his  cause,  spoke  in  a  style 
characterized  as  frigid  and  pettyfogging "  (See  "Campbell's 
Lives  of  Chief  Justices,"  Yol.  xi.,  p.  473).  Mr.  Webster  was 
truly  a  very  great  man,  and  his  argument,  which  Mr.  Calhoun 
did  so  thoroughly  demolish,  was  truly  a  masterpiece  of  tran 
scendent  intellect  and  eloquence  combined.  As  evidence  of  the 
estimate  I  put  upon  him  and  his  speech,  I  deem  it  proper  in 
in  this  connection  to  present  to  your  readers  what  I  said  in  the 
colloquy  upon  both. 

"  It  is  true,  I  always  regarded  Mr.  Webster  as  one  of  the  ablest  of  our 
statesmen  ;  this  the  bust  and  the  picture  in  the  Hall  fully  attest.  In  many 
respects  I  considered  him  the  first  man  in  this  country,  and.  indeed,  the  first 
man  of  the  age  in  which  he  lived.  In  mental  power,  in  grasp  of  thought 
and  in  that  force  and  manner  of  expression  which  constitute  eloquence,  he 
had  no  superior.  Intellectually,  he  was  a  man  of  huge  proportions,  and 
his  patriotism  was  of  the  loftiest  and  purest  character.  Such  was,  and  is, 

my  estimation  of  him You  did  well,  therefore,  in  selecting  his 

argument  on  this  subject.  It  is  the  embodiment  of  all  that  can  be  said  on 
your  side  of  the  question.  It  was  the  characteristic  of  Mr.  Webster  to 
leave  nothing  unsaid  on  his  side  of  any  subject  he  spoke  on  that  could  be 
said  to  strengthen  it,  and  all  that  could  be  said  he  always  said  better  than 
anybody  else.  Hence,  whether  at  the  bar,  on  the  hustings,  or  in  the 
Senate,  his  speeches  were  always  the  best  that  were  made  on  his  side.  It 
used  to  be  a  remark,  often  made  by  our  Chief  Justice  Lumpkin,  who  was 
a  man  himself  of  wonderful  genius,  profound  learning,  and  the  first  of 
orators  in  this  State,  that  Webster  was  always  foremost  amongst  those  with 
whom  he  acted  on  any  question ;  and  that,  even  in  books  of  selected 
pieces,  whenever  selections  were  made  from  Webster,  those  were  the  best 
in  the  book.  This,  I  think,  was  not  too  great  an  eulogiurn  upon  his  tran 
scendent  powers  and  varied  abilities.  But  it  is  not  the  lot  of  any  man  to  be 
perfect.  I  am  far  from  believing  Mr.  Webster  free  from  political  errors. 
And  this  speech  of  his,  which,  by  many  (his  biographer  included,  I  be 
lieve),  is  considered  the  greatest  of  his  life,  you  will  allow  me  to  say,  con 
tains  more  errors  of  this  sort  than  any  he  ever  made.  His  premises  being 
erroneous,  his  conclusions  must  be  of  the  same  character.  The  superstruc 
ture  is  grand.  It  is  the  work  of  a  master  genius.  But  the  foundations 
are  not  solid.  It  was  this  speech,  by  the  by,  which  gave  him  the  appella 
tion  of  the  Great  Expounder  of  the  Constitution  with  the  Consolidation- 
ists  of  that  day.  In  it  he  did  throw  all  the  might  of  his  gigantic  and 
Titan  powers.  But  the  subject  was  an  overmatch  for  him ;  the  under 
taking  was  too  great  for  even  him.  Facts  were  too  stubborn.  His  whole 
soul  was  in  the  subject,  and  he  strove  to  establish  what  he  wished,  rather 


106  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

than  what  actually  existed.  His  effort  was  to  make  facts  bend  to  theory. 
This  could  not  be  done.  This  speech,  I  readily  admit,  is  the  best  and 
ablest  that  was  ever  made  upon  that  side  of  the  question.  It  stands  as  a 
monument  of  genius  and  eloquenee.  As  such  it  may  well  take  its  place 
by  the  side  of  the  great  argument  of  Hume  in  the  defence  of  the  preroga 
tive  of  the  crown,  claimed  by  the  Stuarts,  or  Sir  Robert  Filmer's  famous 
productions  in  favor  of  the  Divine  Right  of  Kings,  or  Sir  George  Macken 
zie's  *  Jus  Regium,'  "  (p.  336). 

This  extract  from  the  book  shows  my  appreciation  of  Mr. 
Webster,  and  this  speech  of  his.  But .  Mr.  Curtis,  in  his 
attempt  to  point  out  what  he  called  a  singular  error  of  mine, 
has  committed  a  very  important  historical  error  himself,  which 
I  do  not  intend  to  permit  to  pass  unnoticed.  In  his  narrative 
he  says : 

"  The  autumn  of  1832  and  the  winter  of  1833  witnessed  the  crisis  of 
*  nullification.'  The  revenue  laws  of  the  United  States  had  been  prostrated 
in  South  Carolina  by  a  system  of  State  laws  which  directly  obstructed  the 
collection  of  any  revenue  whatever.  It  had  become  necessary  for  the 
President  of  the  United  States  to  act,  and  that  President  was  Andrew 
Jackson.  His  proclamation  warned  the  nullifiers  that  their  acts  were  acts 
of '  treason  ; '  and  when  Congress  assembled  in  December,  he  asked  for  the 
passage  of  a  law  adapted  to  the  exigency,  to  enable  him  to  enforce  the  col 
lection  of  the  revenue." 

Now,  the  facts  are,  the  system  of  laws  known  as  the  Nulli 
fying  Acts  of  South  Carolina  were  passed  prospectively.  They 
were  not  to  go  into  effect  until  the  1st  of  February,  1833.  By 
the  interposition  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  through  her  commis 
sioner,  Benjamin  Watkins  Lee,  the  time  for  these  laws  to  go 
into  effect  was  postponed  until  the  close  of  that  session  of  Con 
gress,  which  was  the  4th  of  March,  under  the  hope  and  expecta 
tion  that  Congress  would  redress  the  wrongs  complained  of. 
Mr.  Clay's  Compromise  Bill  on  the  tariff  was  passed  in  the 
mean  time.  This  satisfied  South  Carolina.  These  laws  were 
repealed.  They  never  did  go  into  effect,  and  the  revenue  laws 
of  the  United  States  had  never  been  prostrated  or  obstructed  by 
them  in  the  State  of  South  Carolina. 

Another  matter  in  Mr.  Curtis'  article  needs  notice.  He 
makes  statements  about  Mr.  Webster's  speeches  and  General 
Jackson's  proclamation,  calculated  to  create  the  impression  that 
General  Jackson  approved  the  sentiments  and  doctrines  of  this 


MR.   STEPHENS'  REPLY  TO  MR.   CURTIS.  107 

speecli  of  his  on  the  16th  February,  1833  ;  and  you,  Mr.  Editor, 
are  pleased  editorially  to  say,  that  "  Mr.  Webster's  view  of  our 
constitutional  system  was  the  same  with  that  held  by  the  great 
body  of  the  Democratic  party  at  the  time  when  General  Jackson 
was  President,  and  when  a  Democratic  administration  was 
responsible  for  the  course  of  the  government  on  a  critical  occa 
sion."  Now  I  must  be  permitted  most  respectfully,  but  most 
emphatically,  to  say  that  this  is  a  great  historical  mistake. 
General  Jackson,  doubtless,  felt  under  great  obligations  to  Mr. 
"Webster  for  his  powerful  influence  and  aid  against  the  doctrine 
of  nullification.  To  this  extent  I  do  not  question  he  approved 
his  speech  in  1830  on  the  Foote  resolutions,  and  his  speech  in 
1833  against  Mr.  Calhoun's  resolutions ;  but  he  did  not  agree 
with  either  of  these  speeches,  so  far  as  they  denied  the  Federal 
character  of  the  Government,  or  maintained  that  the  Constitu 
tion  was  not  a  Compact  between  the  States  as  sovereign  parties 
to  it.  Of  this  we  have  the  most  unquestionable  testimony  in 
his  authoritative  explanation  of  the  proclamation  given  through 
the  Washington  Globe.  In  this,  amongst  other  things,  the 
editor  says : 

"  But  we  are  authorized  to  be  more  explicit,  and  to  say  positively 
that  no  part  of  the  proclamation  was  meant  to  countenance  principles 
which  have  been  ascribed  to  it.  On  the  contrary,  its  doctrines,  if  con 
strued  in  the  sense  they  were  intended  and  carried  out,  inculcate  that  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  founded  on  compact ;  that  this  com 
pact  derives  its  obligations  from  the  agreement  entered  into  by  the  people 
of  each  of  the  States  in  their  political  capacity  with  the  people  of  the 
other  States  ;  .  .  .  .  that  in  the  case  of  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  the  usurpation  of  poicers  not  granted  ~by  it  on  the  part  of 
the  functionaries  of  the  General  Government,  tlie  State  governments  have  the 
right  to  interpose,  and  arrest  the  evil  upon  the  principles  which  were  set 
forth  in  the  Virginia  Resolution  of  1798  against  the  Alien  and  Sedition 
laws,  &c" 

In  another  part  of  the  same  authoritative  explanation,  it  is 
said : 

"The  close  of  the  preamNe  which  we  have  quoted  above,  in  connection 
with  its  first  words,  preserves  the  same  idea,  The  Constitution  is  declared 
to  be  established,  not  for  an  aggregate  people,  but  'for  the  United  States  of 
America,' " 


108  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

Such  were  the  views  of  General  Jackson  and  the  -great  ma 
jority  of  the  Democratic  party  at  that  time,  and  such  have  been 
the  views  of  the  great  majority  of  the  Democratic  party  from 
the  days  of  Jefferson  to  this  day,  and  ever  will  be  so  long  as  it 
maintains  the  true  standard  of  its  time-honored  principles.  How 
these  principles  were  considered  by  the  great  majority  of  the 
Democratic  party  and  the  great  majority  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  at  that  time  and  subsequently,  may  be  judged  by 
the  actions  of  their  duly  accredited  representatives  on  record. 
Mr.  Calhoun's  resolutions  were  not  acted  on  in  the  Senate  in 
1833.  Three  days  after  his  speech  upon  them  the  controversy 
with  South  Carolina  was  settled  by  the  passage  of  Mr.  Clay's 
Compromise  Bill.  Congress  adjourned  the  4th  of  March ;  but 
the  agitation  of  these  principles  did  not  cease,  as  is  stated  in  the 
book,  and  that  part  of  it  which  Mr.  Curtis  reviews  (p.  398). 
The  subject  of  the  discussion,  though  the  controversy  that  gave 
rise  to  it  was  amicably  adjusted,  was  taken  up  by  the  press,  by 
public  speakers,  by  the  State  Legislatures,  and  by  the  people 
generally.  The  great  discussions  of  1798, 1799,  and  1800  were 
revived.  Old  landmarks  of  principles  were  traced,  and  the  rapid 
strides  of  the  Federal  government  towards  consolidation  were 
again  stopped.  Mr.  Calhoun,  on  the  28th  of  December,  1837, 
renewed  the  subject  in  the  Senate.  He  then  brought  forward 
another  set  of  resolutions  on  the  same  subject,  and  pressed  them 
to  a  vote.  The  first  of  these  resolutions  is  as  follows  : 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  in  the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution  the 
States  adopting  the  same  acted  severally  as  free,  independent,  and  sover 
eign  States  ;  and  that  each  for  itself  by  its  own  voluntary  assent  entered 
the  Union  with  a  view  to  its  increased  security  against  all  dangers,  domes 
tic  as  well  as  foreign,  and  the  more  perfect  and  secure  enjoyment  of  its 
advantages,  natural,  political,  and  social." 

This  resolution,  which  distinctly  affirms  the  great  truth  set 
forth  in  the  first  of  his  series  in  1833,  passed  the  Senate,  by 
the  large  .majority  of  32  to  13,  on  the  3d  day  of  January,  1838. 
(Congressional  Globe,  Second  Session,  25tfA  Congress,  p.  74.) 
This  was  certainly  the  highest  authoritative  exposition  of  the 
subject  that  could  be  given.  It  was  the  amplest  vindication 
of  the  merits  of  Mr.  Calhoun's  argument  in  1833.  His  argu- 


MR.   STEPHENS'  KEPLY  TO  MR.   CURTIS.  109 

ment  and  Mr.  "Webster's  had  gone  to  the  country,  and  this 
was  the  verdict  of  the  States  upon  the  issue  presented  by  them. 
More  than  two  to  one  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  af 
firmed  most  positively  and  solemnly  that  the  Union  of  the 
States  was  Federal,  and  that  in  entering  into  it,  under  the 
Constitution,  the  States  did  so  severally  as  free,  independent, 
sovereign  powers ;  that  the  Union  was  one  of  States,  formed 
by  States,  and  not  by  the  people  in  the  aggregate  as  one 
nation.  But  upon  an  analysis  of  the  vote  upon  this  resolution 
this  authoritative  exposition  of  Constitutional  views  derives 
increased  importance.  For,  if  we  look  at  the  vote  by  States, 
it  will  be  seen  that  eighteen  States  voted  for  this  resolution, 
wrhile  only  six  voted  against  it.  One  was  divided  and  one 
did  not  vote.  More  than  two-thirds  of  the  States  gave  this 
construction  of  the  character  of  the  Government  in  1838,  in 
direct  opposition  to  the  views  of  Mr.  Webster  in  1833.  It  is 
true  Mr.  Webster  was  in  the  Senate  in  1838,  and  did  not  vote 
for  this  resolution  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  then  passed ;  but  he  did 
not  take  up  the  gauntlet  thrown  down  by  Mr.  Calhoun  for 
another  contest  in  debate  on  the  principles  thus  reannounced. 
Mr.  Clay,  however,  voted  for  it,  which  shows  his  understand 
ing  of  the  nature  of  the  Government. 

The  facts  above  stated,  Mr.  Editor,  show  how  far  Mr.  Cur 
tis  w^as  correct  in  saying  any  thing  calculated  to  make  the  im 
pression  that  General  Jackson  approved  the  principles  of  Mr. 
Webster's  speeches  in  1830  and  1833 ;  and  how  far  you  are 
correct  in  stating  that  "  Mr.  Webster's  view  of  our  Constitu 
tional  System  was  the  same  with  that  held  by  the  great  body 
of  the  Democratic  party  at  the  time  when  General  Jackson  was 
President,  and  when  a  Democratic  administration  was  respon 
sible  for  the  course  of  the  Government  on  a  critical  occasion." 
This  party  was  in  power  in  1837  and  1838.  Mr.  Yan  Buren 
was  President,  but  Mr.  Calhoun  was  still  "master  of  the 
arena  "  in  the  Senate  upon  the  principles  of  his  resolution  of 
1833,  with  Mr.  Clay  as  his  backer ! 

Here  I  might  viery  properly  close  this  communication,  which 
is  intended  only  to  reply  to  Mr.  Curtis'  article,  that  was  given 
to  the  public  as  a  refutation  of  certain  assertions  of  mine,  in 


110  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

that  part  of  the  book  he  took  in  hand  to  review  ;  and  here  I 
should  close  it  if  he  had  not,  in  the  execution  of  his  purpose, 
travelled  somewhat  out  of  the  limits  he  prescribed  for  himself, 
and  in  several  parts  of  his  article  trenched,  by  indirection  at 
least,  upon  other  matters,  questions,  and  principles  discussed  in 
other  parts  of  the  book,  which  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  por 
tion  he  undertook  specially  to  notice.  These  other  questions 
and  principles,  and  the  logical  sequences  claimed  from  all  the 
facts  in  our  history,  first  established  "beyond  doubt  or  question, 
and  especially  from  the  great  fact  that  the  Constitution  is -a 
Compact  between  Sovereign  States,  are  doubtless  what  led  him 
to  say  so  much  about  State  Secession  in  connection  with  Sover 
eignty,  and  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Calhoun  and  Mr.  AVebster  upon 
them.  On  these  general  topics,  so  introduced  into  his  article, 
I  wish,  in  conclusion,  to  add  a  few  general  remarks  only,  and 
ask  your  further  indulgence  for  that  purpose.  Should  Mr. 
Curtis,  or  any  one  else,  feel  disposed  directly  to  assail  any  of 
the  positions  of  the  book  on  these  other  questions,  either  in 
premises  or  conclusions,  it  will  be  time  enough  then  for  me  to 
undertake  their  defence.  One  of  the  matters  so  introduced,  as 
I  have  stated,  in  Mr.  Curtis'  article,  and  which  I  wish  now  in 
a  general  way  to  notice,  is  embraced  in  his  explanation  of  Mr. 
Webster's  speech  before  the  Supreme  Court,  and  is  expressed 
in  the  following  words  : 

"Of  course,  in  order  to  make  the  comity  of  nations,  in  this  respect, 
applicable  to  the  States  of  this  Union  in  their  relations  \vith  each  other,  it 
is  necessary  to  regard  each  State  as,  for  certain  purposes,  a  nation ;  or,  in 
other  words,  to  regard  it  as  a  sovereign  State;  for  such  a  State  alone  can 
be  affected  by  the  law  of  nations,  as  it  exists  when  not  curtailed  by  the 
sovereign  will,  or  can  declare  by  legislation,  or  by  its  public  policy,  that 
it  does  not  mean  to  be  bound  by  a  particular  rule  of  that  law.  But 
neither  Mr.  Webster  nor  any  one  else,  in  claiming  that  the  States  are  sov 
ereign  in  respect  to  their  liability  to  be  affected  by  the  voluntary  law  of 
nations,  in  their  relations  to  the  citizens  of  other  States,  in  matters  of 
property,  there  by  admits  that  they  are  sovereign  in  respect  to  their  ca 
pacity  to  withdraw  from  the  Union.  It  is  remarkable  that  Mr.  Stephens 
should  have  confounded  these  two  things,  which  are  as  wide  asunder  as 
the  poles." 

Now  it  is  apparent  that  Mr.  Curtis  in  these  remarks  alludes 
to  matters  or  positions  of  mine  not  in  that  part  of  the  book  he 


MR.   STEPHENS'  REPLY  TO  ME.   CUPwTIS.  HI 

undertook  specially  to  review.  There  is  nothing  about  the 
right  or  capacity  of  a  State  to  withdraw  from  the  Union  in 
any  of  the  extracts  produced  by  him.  This,  therefore,  is  a  sort 
of  side-bar  remark  of  his  upon  points  which  he  eschewed  to 
enter  upon  when  he  set  out.  But  I  say  to  him  most  respect 
fully,  for  I  do  entertain  for  him  personally  the  highest  respect 
and  kindest  regards,  that  there  is  in  no  part  of  the  book  any 
"  confounding  "  of  things  of  this  sort,  or  of  any  things  of  any 
sort  whatever.  There  is  in  it  from  beginning  to  end  no  med 
dling  with  things  which  I  did  not  clearly  perceive  and  do  not 
thoroughly  understand. 

If  there  is  any  confusion  of  ideas  on  this  subject,  I  appre 
hend  that  it  is  with  himself  in  supposing  that  a  State  or  nation 
can  be  sovereign  for  one  purpose  and  not  sovereign  for  all  pur 
poses  which  lie  within  the  domain  of  sovereignty  itself.  lie 
in  another  place  (where  he  indulges  in  a  similar  course  of  re 
marks)  distinctly  maintains  that  sovereignty  is  divisible,  and 
says  that  Mr.  Webster  so  held  too.  If  so,  when  or  where  ?  I 
certainly  do  not  recollect  of  ever  having  seen  any  thing  from 
him  announcing  such  a  doctrine. 

Sovereignty  is  the  paramount  authority  in  any  State  or 
nation,  to  which  all  other  powers  or  authority  must  yield.  It 
is  that  absolute  right  of  self-determination,  in  any  separate  and 
distinct  political  body,  which,  in  pursuit  of  the  well-being  of  its 
own  organism,  without  injury  to  others,  cannot  be  rightfully 
interfered  with  by  any  other  similar  body.  It  is  that  attribute 
of  the  political  body  which  corresponds  with  the  will  and  power 
of  self-action  in  the  physical  body,  and  ly  its  very  nature  is  in 
divisible.  Just  as  much  so  as  the  mind  is,  in  the  individual  or 
ganism. 

"Sic  volo9  sic  jubeo ;  stat  pro  ratione  voluntas" — "  Thus  I 
wish  and  order ;  my  will  stands  in  the  place  of  reason  " — is  the 
language  of  sovereignty.  There  have  been  many  'methods 
adopted  to  give  exact  ideas  of  this  attribute  or  essential  quality 
of  the  body  politic — some  by  definitions,  and  some  by  descrip 
tions.  But  all  publicists  of  note  in  both  ancient  and  modern 
times  agree  in  holding  that  it  is  in  itself  indivisible.  Aristotle 
so  held  ;  Grotius  so  held ;  Puffendorff  so  held ;  Yattel  so  held ; 


112  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

and  our  own  Lieber  and  Jameson  so  hold ;  to  say  nothing  of 
others.  Sovereignty  and  allegiance,  all  agree,  go  together. 
The  latter  follows  the  former.  If  sovereignty  were  divisible, 
then  allegiance  would  be  also.  But  we  have  it  from  the  Head 
of  a  much  higher  school  than  that  of  either  Mr.  AYebster  or  Mr. 
Calhoun,  that  " no  man  can  serve  two  masters" 

The  "  confounding  "  in  this  matter  is  on  the  part  of  Mr. 
Curtis,  in  not  recognizing  the  difference  between  the  exercise 
of  sovereign  powers  and  sovereignty  itself,  from  which  the  pow 
ers  exercised  emanate.  The  exercise  of  sovereign  powers  may 
be  delegated,  and  the  exercise  of  different  powers  of  this  kind 
may  in  this  way  be  intrusted  to  different  hands.  In  this  way, 
and  in  this  way  only,  can  even  the  exercise  of  sovereign  pow 
ers  be  divided.  And  in  this  way  they  are  so  divided  in  all 
Free  States. 

The  Legislative  power,  the  Judicial  power,  and  the  Execu 
tive  power  are  all  sovereign  powers ;  and  yet  in  this  country, 
and  in  all  countries  where  despotism  does  not  prevail,  they  are 
thus  divided,  and  the  exercise  of  them  is  committed  to  separate 
and  distinct  hands,  in  trust,  by  delegation.  Sovereignty  itself, 
however,  from  which  they  all  emanate,  remains,  meanwhile,  the 
same  indi/visible  unit.  This  is  the  trinity  in  unity  exhibited  in 
all  properly  constituted  Representative  Governments.  Nor  is 
the  delegation  to  another  of  the  right  to  exercise  a  power  of  any 
kind,  whether  sovereign  or  not,  in  any  sense  an  alienation  of  it. 
The  fact  of  its  being  delegated  shows  that  the  source  from 
which  the  delegation  proceeds  continues  to  exist. 

Mr.  "Webster  doubtless  held,  as  his  great  speech  referred  to 
shows,  that  the  right  to  exercise  sovereign  powers  may  be  and 
is  delegated,  and  that  in  this  way  the  exercise  of  sovereign 
powers  may  be,  and  is  divided.  Mr.  Calhoun  certainly  so  held. 
An  essential  point  of  difference  between  Mr.  Webster  and  Mr. 
Calhoun  on  that  occasion  was,  whether  the  sovereign  powers 
intrusted  to  the  General  Government  came  by  delegation  from 
the  sovereignty  of  the  several  States,  as  separate,  distinct 
bodies  politic,  or  nations  (thus  forming  a  Federal  Republic,  of 
which  the  States,  as  States,  were  the  members  and  parties),  or 


MR.   STEPHENS'  EEPLY  TO  MR.   CURTIS. 

from  tlic  sovereignty  of  the  whole  people  of  all  the  States, 
united  as  one  body  politic,  or  one  nation. 

While  sovereignty  itself  then,  by  all  writers  of  note,  is  held 
to  be  indivisible,  and  by  most  of  them  to  be  inalienable,  yet  it 
is  nevertheless  universally  admitted  by  all  of  them  that  it  may 
impose  obligations  upon  itself.  In  other  words,  it  is  admitted 
that  Sovereign  States  may  enter  into  voluntary  engagement 
with  each  other  touching  the  exercise  of  any  of  their  sovereign 
powers  they  choose,  even  to  the  putting  of  restraints  upon 
their  awn  exercise  of  them  without  impairing  in  the  least  or 
parting  with  any  portion  of  their  sovereignty  itself.  This  is 
the  basis  of  all  treaties,  conventions,  or  compacts  of  any  sort 
between  separate  States  or  nations.  This,  too,  is  the  basis  of 
all  Confederations  or  Federal  Unions.  But  in  these  voluntary 
restraints  upon  the  exercise  of  any  of  their  sovereign  powers, 
there  is  no  surrender  of  the  right.  Hence,  in  all  such  cases, 
each  State,  notwithstanding  these  voluntarily  imposed  re 
straints,  remains  a  perfect  State,  a  Sovereign  State,  and  as  such 
continues  (as  maintained  by  Mr.  Webster)  "  as  much  a  compo 
nent  part  of  the  laws  of  nations  as  any  others ; "  and  as  between 
tJiemselves  all  such  States  are  as  much  subject  to  the  laws  of  na- 
tiqris  upon  all  questions  or  controversies  in  the  last  resort,  as 
any  other  Sovereign  States  or  nations  whatever.  Such  is  ex 
actly  the  condition  of  the  States  of  this  Union  as  maintained 
throughout  the  book.  So  much  for  Mr.  Curtis'  idea  of  the  di 
visibility  of  sovereignty,  and  of  my  having  "  confounded  "  on 
the  subject  "  two  things  as  wide  asunder  as  the  poles." 

But  again,  in  several  parts- of  his  article,  he  speaks  as  if  he 
were  under  the  impression  that  Mr.  Calhoun  considered  the 
right  of  a  State  of  our  Union  to  withdraw,  or  secede,  as  a  right 
derived  from  the  Constitution  ;  he  seems  also  to  be  under  the 
impression  that  I  have  defended  the  rightfulness  of  that  meas 
ure  upon  the  same  ground.  In  these  views  he  is  entirely  mis 
taken.  Mr.  Calhoun  did  maintain  that  Nullification  was  a 
Constitutional  remedy,  but  not  Secession.  And  if  Mr.  Curtis 
will  give  the  other  portions  of  the  book  a  more  careful  perusal, 
he  will  see  very  clearly  that  I  have  not  defended  the  Rightful- 
ness  of  Secession  upon  any  grounds  derived  from  any  pro- 
8 


THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

vision  in  the  Constitution.     On  page  500  lie  will  see  it  thus 
stated : 

"  This  right  of  a  State  to  consider  herself  no  longer  bound  by  a  Com 
pact  which,  in  her  judgment,  has  been  broken  by  her  confederates,  and  to 
secede  from  a  Union,  formed  as  ours  was,  has  nothing  about  it  either  new 
or  novel.  It  is  incident  to  all  Federal  Republics.  It  is  not  derived  from 
the  Compact  itself.  It  does  not  spring  from  it  at  all.  It  is  derived  from 
the  same  source  that  the  right  is  derived  to  abrogate  a  treaty  by  either  or 
any  of  the  parties  to  it.  That  is  seldom  set  forth  in  the  treaty  itself,  and 
yet  it  exists,  whether  it  be  set  forth  or  not.  So,  in  any  Federal  Compact 
whatever,  the  parties  may  or  may  not  expressly  provide  for  breaches  of  it. 
But  where  no  such  provision  is  made,  the  right  exists  by  the  same  laws  of 
nations  which  govern  in  all  matters  of  treaties  or  conventions  between 
sovereigns." 

On  page  496,  he  will  see  my  answer  to  the  direct  question, 
whether  a  State  of  our  Union  could  so  act  without  a  violation 
of  her  solemn  obligations  under  the  compact  ?  It  is  in  these 
words : 

"I  give  this  full  and  direct  answer:  she  had  a  perfect  right  so  to  do, 
subject  to  no  authority  but  the  great  moral  law  which  governs  the  inter 
course  between  independent  sovereign  powers,  peoples,  or  nations." 

There  is  nothing  in  the  book  which  treats  Secession  as  a 
right  derived  from  the  Constitution.  It  is,  on  the  contrary,  a 
right  derived  from  that  Sovereign  Power  which  made  the  Con 
stitution.  Yours,  respectfully, 

ALEXAKDER  II.  STEPHENS. 


III. — HEJOIXDEK  OF  ME.  CURTIS.  ;y 

I  have  read  Mr.  Stephens'  answer  to  my  defence  of  Mr. 
Webster  against  the  imputation  of  having  changed  his  opinions 
on  the  nature  of  the  Constitution.  My  reply  will  be  brief. 

There  are  two  theories  respecting  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  According  to  the  one,  it  is  a  regular  popular 
Government,  of  a  limited  character,  formed  by  the  grant  of 
certain  specified  powers  which  the  people  of  each  State  thought 
fit  to  sever  from  the  whole  mass  of  their  respective  sovereign- 


REJOINDER  OF  ME.   CURTIS.  H5 

ties ;  and  this  Government,  so  constituted,  operates  to  the  ex 
tent  of  its  enumerated  powers,  directly  upon  all  individuals  in 
the  United  States,  just  as  a  State  Government  operates  to  the 
extent  of  the  powers  which  its  people  have  reserved  to  them 
selves,  directly,  upon  all  the  individuals  in  the  State.  This  is 
the  Webster  theory,  as  I  understand  it. 

The  other  theory  is,  that  the  Constitution  is  a  Compact  be 
tween  Sovereign  States,  formed  by  the  delegation  of  certain 
political  powers,  which  the  people  of  the  several  States  did  not 
sever  and  alienate  from  the  whole  mass  of  their  respective  sover 
eignties,  but  which  they  agreed  with  each  other,  through  the 
Constitution,  should  be  exercised  by  a  common  depositary  or 
agent.  This  is  the  Calhoun  theory,  as  I  understand  it. 

I  do  not  mean  that  either  of  these  statements  comprehends 
all  that  is  peculiar  to  the  two  opposite  theories,  but  they  are 
enough  to  mark,  for  the  present  purpose,  the  broad  line  of  dis 
tinction  between  them. 

All  who  are  accustomed  to  reason  on  these  subjects  are  per 
fectly  aware  that,  if  the  first  of  these  theories  is  the  true  one, 
there  can  be  no  lawful  resistance  by  the  people  of  a  State,  to  the 
exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  in  the  Constitution,  and  no 
lawful  withdrawal  of  those  powers.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the 
second  of  these  theories  is  the  true  one,  the  sovereign  parties  to 
the  compact  who  have  only  delegated,  not  alienated,  some  of 
their  political  powers,  can  break  that  compact  whenever  they 
see  fit,  incurring  only  the  penalty  which  attaches  to  any  sover 
eign  who  breaks  a  treaty — namely,  a  liability  to  war  to  be  waged 
by  the  parties  who  adhere  to  the  compact. 

!Now,  Mr.  Editor,  I  found  it,  in  a  book  written  by  Mr. 
Stephens,  imputed  to  Daniel  Webster  that,  whereas  in  1830-33 
he  held,  and  had  always  held,  and  had  assisted  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  to  enforce,  the  first  of  these  theories,  he 
subsequently  changed  his  opinions,  and  came  to  regard  the  Con 
stitution  as  a  "  Compact  between  Sovereign  States."  I  under 
took  to  show  that  there  was  no  foundation  for  the  suggestion  ; 
with  what  success  the  public  can  judge.  I  do  not  propose  to 
repeat  the  arguments  or  the  proofs. 

Mr.  Stephens  complains  that  I  represented  him  as  having 


116  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

charged  Mr.  "Webster  with  the  adoption  of  the  doctrine  and 
right  of  State  secession  from  the  Union  ;  which  he  says  he  did 
not  charge,  and  he  adds  that  he  does  not  suppose  Mr.  Webster 
ever  believed  in  it.  But  I  did  not  so  represent  Mr.  Stephens' 
charge  or  assertion  or  position.  My  language  was  guarded  and 
chosen.  I  said  that  he  had  imputed  to  Mr.  "Webster  that  he 
had  become  a  convert,  or  almost  a  convert,  to  those  mews  of 
State  sovereignty  on  which  the  doctrine,  or  supposed  right,  of 
State  secession  is  founded  by  those  who  do  believe  in  it.  This 
is  exactly  what  Mr.  Stephens  labored  to  show  in  his  book,  in 
regard  to  Mr.  "Webster's  change  of  views,  and  it  is  what  he  now 
writes  a  second  argument  to  prove.  He  thinks  Mr.  "Webster  so 
far  changed  his  opinions  as  to  regard  the  Constitution  as  a 
"Compact  between  Sovereign  States."  This  I  denied.  He 
thinks,  if  I  understand  him  rightly,  that  Mr.  Webster  could 
regard  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  as  being  a  compact 
between  sovereign  States  and  at  the  same  time  reject  the  right 
of  secession.  This  I  maintain  could  not  be  done  by  Mr.  "Web 
ster  or  any  other  man. 

Mr.  Stephens  finds  fault  with  me*  for  saying  that  President 
Jackson,  in  1832-3,  gave  his  sanction  to  Mr.  Webster's  views 
as  maintained  in  1830  against  Mr.  Hayne ;  and  he  finds  fault 
with  you,  Mr.  Editor,  for  saying  in  your  editorial  columns  that 
Mr.  Webster's  view  of  the  nature  of  the  Constitution  "  was  the 
same  with  that  held  by  the  great  body  of  the  Democratic  party 
at  the  time  when  General  Jackson  was  President,  and  when  a 
Democratic  administration  was  responsible  for  the  course  of  the 
Government  on  a  critical  occasion."  Mr.  Stephens,  in  opposi 
tion  to  this  statement,  reiterates  what  he  had  quoted  in  his  book, 
namely,  an  editorial  article  of  the  Globe  newspaper,  in  which 
the  conductors  of  that  paper  undertook  to  qualify  and  explain 
away  the  doctrines  of  the  President's  proclamation  against  the 
Eullifiers,  and  said  that  they  did  this  "  by  authority."  Now, 
sir,  it  is  quite  notorious  that  there  were  politicians  in  the  Demo 
cratic  party  at  that  time  (chiefly  Southern  men)  who  were 
greatly  dissatisfied  with  Gen.  Jackson's  proclamation,  and  who 
affected  to  disbelieve  that  the  President  had  asked  the  Judiciary 
Committee  of  the  Senate  for  the  extraordinary  powers  embraced 


REJOINDER  OF  MR.   CURTIS.  117 

in  the  Force  Bill,  until  Mr.  "Webster  told  them  in  the  Senate, 
in  the  plainest  terms,  what  he  personally  knew,  that  the  Presi 
dent  had  asked  for  those  powers,  "  no  matter  how  high  may  be 
the  offence."  It  is  quite  true,  however,  that  there  was  no  justi 
fication  for  the  Force  Bill,  excepting  upon  the  grounds  taken  in 
the  previous  proclamation  and  in  the  President's  special  message 
after  the  steps  of  the  Nullifiers  in  South  Carolina  had  produced 
the  crisis  which  made  it  necessary  for  the  President  to  act.  If 
those  grounds  were  true — and  they  were  so  entirely  in  accord 
ance  with  Mr.  Webster's  opinions  that  the  moment  he  saw  them 
announced  by  the  Executive  he  resolved  to  support  the  admin 
istration  in  this  contest,  against  everybody,  regardless  of  all 
former  differences — then  General  Jackson  was  a  patriot  Presi 
dent,  acting  entirely  within  the  scope  and  intent  of  the  Con 
stitution.  If  those  grounds  were  not  true,  if  the  Constitution 
was  a  "  Compact  between  Sovereign  States,"  General  Jackson 
was,  as  the  Legislature  of  South  Carolina  after  the  proclamation 
denounced  him,  a  tyrant  and  a  usurper,  and  nullification  was  a 
lawful  and  constitutional  remedy  against  the  alleged  wrongs 
of  the  tariff.  On  this  great  issue  there  was  a  minority  in  the 
Democratic  party  who  did  not  like  the  President's  attitude ; 
and  it  is  doubtless  true  that,  for  certain  electioneering  purposes, 
chiefly  wanted  in  Virginia,  the  conductors  of  the  Globe  persuaded 
the  "  old  hero  "  to  let  them  put  forth  the  article  which  Mr. 
Stephens  quotes,  and  which  was  the  merest  muddle,  from  which 
no  man  can  extract  any  intelligible  theory  of  the  nature  of  our 
constitutional  system.  To  say  that  a  President's  constitutional 
opinions,  as  expressed  and  acted  upon  in  important  State  papers, 
over  his  official  signature,  and  carried  out  in  acts  of  Congress 
approved  by  him,  are  to  be  qualified  in  history  by  an  electioneer 
ing  article  in  a  newspaper,  designed  to  soothe  some  of  his  irri 
tated  followers,  is  a  new  way  of  authenticating  the  doctrines 
which  the  official  head  of  a  great  party,  and  the  official  head  of 
the  Government,  meant  to  impress  upon  the  Constitution  as  its 
rightful  construction. 

But,  sir,  if  there  were  time  and  space  for  it,  I  could  take 
issue  with  Mr.  Stephens  on  this  question  of  what  was  regarded 
by  the  great  body  of  the  Democratic  party  at  the  time  in  ques- 


118  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

tion,  as  the  truth,  in  respect  to  the  difference  between  Mr. 
Webster  and  Mr.  Calhoun  on  the  nature  of  the  Constitution. 
I  could  print  a  volume  of  letters  addressed  to  Mr.  "Webster  by 
prominent  Democrats  throughout  the  North  and  West,  and  by 
not  a  few  in  the  South,  both  in  1830  and  1833,-  assuring  him 
that  they  concurred  in  his  constitutional  opinions  about  the 
character  of  the  Constitution,  and  thanking  him  in  the  warmest 
terms  for  what  he  had  done  in  those  great  debates.  But  I  will 
print  but  one.  It  was  written  to  Mr.  Webster  by  Mr.  Madison 
after  the  debate  of  1833,  in  which  Mr.  Stephens  thinks  Mr. 
Calhoun  annihilated  Mr.  Webster.  Mr.  Madison,  I  presume  it 
will  be  allowed,  was  a  Democrat.  At  all  events,  he  was  one 
of  the  authors  of  the  much  misunderstood  and  misrepresented 
Virginia  and  Kentucky  .Resolutions  of  1Y98.  He  was  as  much 
entitled  to  know  what  was  good  Democratic  doctrine  as  any 
man  then  alive  ;  and  he  was  as  much  entitled  to  know  what  the 
Constitution  is  as  any  man  who  had  lived  then  or  is  living  now. 
The  following  letter  was  printed  in  Mr.  Fletcher  Webster's 
collection  of  his  father's  correspondence,  under  an  erroneous 
date  (1830),  as  if  it  referred  to  the  reply  to  Hayne.  It  was 
written  in  1833,  after  the  debate  with  Calhoun,  and  it  is  printed 
with  its  correct  date  in  Mr.  Madison's  works.  I  copy  from  the 
^autograph  letter ;  and  it  will  be  seen  that  there  is  no  difference 
between  Mr.  Webster's  understanding  of  the  Constitution  and 
Mr.  Madison's.  The  letter  also  incidentally  throws  some  light 
on  the  well-known  purpose  of  the  Globe  article : 

[ME.  MADISON  TO  ME.  WEBSTEE.] 

MONTPELIER,  March  15,  1833. 

DEAE  SIE  :  —  I  return  my  thanks  for  the  copy  of  your  late  very  power 
ful  speech  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  It  crushes  "  nullification," 
and  must  hasten  an  abandonment  of  Secession.  But  this  dodges  the  blow, 
by  confounding  the  claim  to  secede  at  will  witH  the  right  of  seceding 
from  intolerable  oppression. 

The  former  answers  itself,  being  a  violation  without  cause,  of  a  faith 
solemnly  pledged.  The  latter  is  another  name  only  for  revolution,  about 
which  there  is  no  theoretic  controversy.  Its  double  aspect,  nevertheless, 
with  the  countenance  received  from  certain  quarters,  is  giving  it  a  popular 
currency  here,  which  may  influence  the  approaching  elections,  both  for 


REJOINDER  OF  MR.   CURTIS.  119 

Congress  and  for  the  State  Legislatures.  It  has  gained  some  advantage, 
also,  by  mixing  itself  with  the  question,  whether  the  Constitution  of  the. 
United  States  was  formed  by  the  people  or  by  the  States,  now  under  a 
theoretic  discussion  by  animated  partisans. 

It  is  fortunate  when  disputed  theories  can  be  decided  by  undisputed 
facts.  And  here  the  undisputed  fact  is,  that  the  Constitution  was  made 
by  the  people,  but  as  embodied  into  the  several  States  who  were  parties 
to  it,  and  therefore  made  by  the  States,  in  their  highest  authoritative 
capacity. 

They  might,  by  the  same  authority  and  by  the  same  process,  have 
converted  the  Confederacy  into  a  mere  league  or  treaty,  or  continued  it 
with  enlarged  or  unabridged  powers ;  or  have  embodied  the  people  of 
their  respective  States  into  one  people,  nation,  or  sovereignty ;  or,  as  they 
did  by  a  mixed,  -make  them  one  people,  nation,  or  sovereignty  for  certain 
purposes,  and  not  so  for  others. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  being  established  by  a  compe 
tent  authority — by  that  of  the  people  of  the  several  States,  who  were  the 
parties  to  it — it  remains  only  to  inquire  what  the  Constitution  is,  and  here  it 
speaks  for  itself.  It  organizes  a  government  into  the  usual  Legislative, 
Executive,  and  Judiciary  departments;  invests  it  with  specified  powers, 
leaving  others  to  the  parties  to  the  Constitution ;  it  makes  the  Govern 
ment  to  operate  directly  on  the  people ;  places  at  its  command  the  needful 
physical  means  of  executing  its  powers ;  and,  finally,  proclaims  its  su 
premacy,  and  that  of  the  laws  made  in  pursuance  of  it,  over  the  constitu 
tions  and  laws  of  the  States ;  the  powers  of  the  Government  being  exer 
cised,  as  in  other  elective  and  responsible  Governments^  under  the  control 
of  its  constituents,  the  people  and  Legislatures  of  the  States,  and  subject 
to  the  revolutionary  rights  of  the  people  in  extreme  cases. 

Such  is  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  dejure  an<5  de  facto  ;  and 
the  name,  whatever  it  be  that  may  be  given  to  it,  can  make  it  nothing 
more  nor  less  than  what  it  actually  is. 

Pardon  this  hasty  effusion,  which,  whether  according  or  not  precisely 
with  your  ideas,  presents,  I  am  aware,  none  that  are  new  to  you. 

With  great  esteem  and  cordial  salutation, 

JAMES  MADISON. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  find  fault  with  this  description  of 
what  the  Constitution  is,  as  it  is  impossible  to  find  in  it  the  doc 
trine  of  Compact  between  Sovereign  States.  Mr.  Madison  had 
too  accurate  a  mind  not  to  see  that  the  right  to  secede  at  will 
involves  a  violation  without  cause  of  a  faith  solemnly  pledged ; 
and  that  the  right  of  seceding  from  intolerable  oppression  is 
simply  the  right  of  revolution,  which  exists  at  all  times  against 


120  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

all  governments,  be  their  nature  what  it  may.  Nor  was  Mr. 
Madison  so  inaccurate,  or  so  fine  in  his  political  metaphysics,  as 
not  to  see  that  the  peoples  of  independent  States  can  make 
themselves  one  people,  nation,  or  sovereignty,  for  certain  pur 
poses  and  not  so  for  others. 

And  now,  Mr.  Editor,  let  me  conclude  this  controversy,  so 
far  as  I  am  concerned,  by  asking  to  what,  but  to  the  doctrine 
that  the  Constitution  was  a  "  compact  between  sovereign  States," 
do  we  owe  the  fact  that  we  are  now  living  under  a  kind  of  mili 
tary  despotism  carried  on  through  the  forms  of  the  Constitu 
tion  ?  Look  at  what  is  transacting  at  this  moment  in  and  in 
regard  to  Virginia ;  her  people  treated  exactly  as  if  they  had 
been  a  foreign  sovereignty  conquered  in  a  regular  war ;  held  to 
be  out  of  the  Union ;  ordered  to  make  a  State  Constitution  to 
suit  the  views  of  Congress ;  ordered  to  ratify  a  certain  amend 
ment  of  the  Federal  Constitution ;  and  held  in  suspense  as  to 
her  relations  to  the  Union  until  she  has  satisfied  the  demands 
of  the  only  true  "  Consolidationists  "  that  we  have  ever  had  in 
our  political  history.  To  what,  I  repeat,  do  we  owe  this  state 
of  affairs  ?  If  the  Constitution  was  a  "  Compact  between  Sov 
ereign  States,"  the  compact  was  broken  by  the  secession  of  the 
Southern  States ;  and  it  was  perfectly  legitimate  for  Congress 
to  make  war  upon  the  States  themselves,  to  conquer  them  as 
sovereign  parties  to  a  war,  and,  having  conquered  them,  to  sup 
press  their  governments,  and  to  mould  them  just  as  it  would 
mould  a  foreign  territory  conquered  by  arms  or  acquired  by 
treaty.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  Constitution  was  what  Mr. 
"Webster  always  maintained  it  to  be,  Treason  was  an  individual 
offence,  liable  as  such  to  punishment,  not  by  ex  post  facto  laws 
of  disfranchisement  or  any  subsequently  created  disqualifica 
tions,  but  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  and 
the  previous  laws  of  the  Land ;  the  rebellion  was  a  mere  insur 
rection  ;  there  could  be  no  war  upon  the  States  in  the  sense  of 
making  conquests  of  the  States  themselves ;  and,  consequently, 
there  could  be  no  reconstruction  and  no  dictation  of  conditions 
involving  the  question  whether  the  States  were  in  or  out  of  the 
Union  after  the  insurrection  was  over.  But  Congress,  by  legis 
lation,  said  to  the  Southern  professors  of  the  doctrine  that  the 


REJOINDER  OF  MR.   CURTIS.  121 

Constitution  is  a  Compact  between  Sovereign  States :  "  We  take 
you  at  your  word ;  you  broke  the  Compact ;  we  have  conquered 
you  as  States  that  have  broken  a  treaty ;  now  take  the  conse 
quences,  and  get  back  into  the  Union  when  we  choose  to  take 
from  your  necks  the  iron  heel  of  our  military  power."  Has  not 
this  been  the  result  ?  And  is  this  the  government  of  our 
fathers  ?  Is  this  the  Constitution  which  Washington  and  Mad 
ison  framed  and  administered ;  which  Hamilton  and  Webster 
expounded ;  which  Jackson  prepared  himself  to  carry  out  ?  It 
is  neither  of  them.  It  is  a  hybrid^  born  of  the  notion  that  a 
popular  government — which  acts  directly  on  individuals  and 
rests  for  its  sanctions  on  the  will  of  the  people,  and  has  its  own 
accurate  definition  of  Treason  drawn  from  the  purified  foun 
tains  of  the  common  law — is  an  inter-State  league  between  a 

O 

group  of  sovereign  powers,  which  one  party  may  break  and  be 
punished  for  breaking  by  an  international  conquest.  I  confess, 
Mr.  Editor,  when  I  see  or  hear  persons  who  are  accounted 
Democrats  maintaining  State  Rights  upon  the  Calhoun  theory 
of  our  system,  I  can  only  wish  they  would  point  out  to  me 
upon  what  possible  ground  of  public  law  or  political  science 
they  can  complain  of  what  has  been  done  by  Congress  to  the 
South.  Perhaps  there  are  those  in  the  South,  disciples  of  the 
doctrine  of  Compact,  who,  in  strict  consistency,  do  not  complain 
of  it.  But  we  of  the  North  have  State  Eights  of  our  own  to 
defend,  if  haply  there  is  any  remaining  means  of  defending 
them,  and  it  behooves  us  to  know  on  what  ground  they  can  be 
defended.  It  behooves  us  to  see  that  the  idea  of  treating  the 
Constitution  as  a  Compact  between  sovereign  parties  to  an 
inter-State  league  is  the  merest  delusion  for  those  who  mean  to 
confine  the  general  government  to  the  sphere  of  its  legitimate 
and  enumerated  powers,  and  to  assert  the  rights  of  the  States 
over  all  other  subjects.  The  doctrine  of  "Compact"  was  a 
snare  which  some  of  the  great  men  of  the  South  unwittingly 
laid  for  the  feet  of  their  own  people.  They  would  not  accept 
Mr.  Webster's  firm  position  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  confining 
it  where  it  was  before  the  acquisition  of  Texas,  defending  it  by 
the  unquestionable  truth  that,  in  the  States  where  it  then  ex 
isted,  the  JSTorth  could  not  rightfully  touch  it,  and  thus  leaving 


122  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

it  to  be  gradually  worn  out  by  the  imperceptible  but  sure  opera 
tion  of  causes  that  were  destined  to  extinguish  it.  They  sought 
for  political  defences  of  this  institution  by  enlarging  its  area ; 
and  the^;  conceived,  what  the  previous  generation  had  not  con 
ceived,  that  the  Constitution  being  a  Compact  between  Sover 
eign  States,  two  consequences  would  follow:  first,  that  the 
Constitution,  proprio  vigore,  would  give  them  a  right  to  carry 
slavery  into  the  public  domain,  which  was  the  common  property 
of  States  thus  united ;  second,  that,  if  this  right  were  not  ad 
mitted,  the  compact  could  be  broken  by  secession,  and  that 
there  would  be  a  case  justifying  that  step.  For  all  this  there 
was  more  or  less  provocation  and  incitement  in  what  was  going 
011  in  the  l^orth ;  but  the  grand  error  that  was  committed  at 
the  South  was  in  not  seeing  that  the  true  defence  of  slavery,  as 
a  State  institution,  rested  like  the  defence  of  all  other  State 
Eights,  upon  the  doctrine  that  the  Constitution  is  no  compact, 
but  a  fundamental  law,  limiting  the  sphere  of  the  general  gov 
ernment  by  the  sanctions  of  enacted  law,  and  containing,  as 
part  of  the  same  enacted  law,  the  strenuously  asserted  principle 
that  all  the  powers  of  government,  not  embraced  in  the  Con 
stitution,  and  not  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are  reserved  to 
the  States  or  the  people.  And  now  that  the  doctrine  of  com 
pact  has  been  played  out  to  its  legitimate  and -inevitable  end; 
now  that  the  very  result  has  come  which  Mr.  Webster  foresaw 
and  foretold ;  now  that  our  institutions  are  converted,  perhaps 
beyond  redemption,  into  what  he  predicted  they  would  become 
if  the  practical  operation  of  Mr.  Calhoun's  theories  should  pro 
duce  a  civil  war ;  now  that  we  have  reaped  the  fruits  of  these 
theories,  by  the  excuse  which  they  have  afforded  for  a  kind  of 
government  that  "  out-herods  Herod "  in  the  assertion  of  the 
compact  principle,  a*nd  makes  the  government  of  our  fathers  a 
military  colossus — it  is,  I  admit,  with  some  ijnpatience  that  I 
hear  Mr.  Webster  claimed  as  a  believer  in  the  doctrine  which 
he  spent  more  than  twenty  years  of  his  life  in  resisting,  and 
which  he  knew  would  ruin  us  at  last. 

•G.  T.  C. 

NEW  YORK,  September,  1869. 


SUR-REJOINDER  OF  MR.  STEPHENS.  123 

IY. SUR-EEJOINDEE   OF   ME.    STEPHENS. 

LIBERTY  HALL,  ) 

CRAWFORDYILLE,  GA.,  September  25,  1869.  \ 

Messrs.  Editors  of  the  New  York  World : 

In  your  paper  of  the  13tli  instant,  which  reached  me  a  few 
days  ago  through  the  kind  attentions  of  a  friend,  I  see  what 
purports  to  be  a  rejoinder  of  Hon.  George  T.  Curtis  to  my 
reply  to  his  article  in  review  of  that  part  of  my  book  upon  the 
late  war  between  the  States  which  relates  to  the  opinions  of 
Mr.  Webster,  as  expressed  in  1833,  upon  the  subject  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  being  a  Compact  between 
the  States,  and  his  subsequent  modification  of  those  opinions 
or  views. 

In  this  "rejoinder,"  so  called,  Mr.  Curtis  has,  as  your 
readers  perceive,  widely  wandered  from  the  points  and  issues 
between  us  raised  by  his  review  and  my  reply  to  it.  He  makes 
but  one  allusion  in  it  to  any  of  them.  He  has  virtually  aban 
doned  his  own  chosen  and  limited  topics  of  discussion — gone 
off  into  entirely  new  matter,  and  after  presenting  other  and 
altogether  new  questions  about  two  different  theories  of  govern 
ment,  &c.,  concludes,  so  far  as  he  is  concerned,  the  controversy 
on  the  points  he  had  at  first  raised. 

Now,  I  am  quite  as  little  inclined  to  pursue  a  rairibling  con 
troversy,  as  Mr.  Curtis  evidently  is  to  stand  by  the  results  of 
the  one  which  he  commenced  with  so  much  zeal  and  ardor ;  but 
from  which  he  so  "  impatiently  "  retires.  The  rule  with  me  is : 
One  thing  at  a  time,  and  all  things  in  their  order.  Discussions 
are  seldom  either  entertaining  or  instructive  which  are  not  con 
fined  as  they  advance  step  by  step  to  the  immediate  points 
under  consideration  at  the  time.  In  this  way  only  can  any 
real  progress  ever  be  made  towards  the  establishment  of  any 
truth  by  reason  and  argument. 

It  is  not  my  intention,  however,  to  permit  the  new  ques 
tions  now  presented  by  him  to  pass  unnoticed.  They  are  them 
selves  of  too  much  importance.  But,  before  taking  them  up, 
it  is  proper  first  to  see  how  matters  stand  between  us  upon 


124  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

those  heretofore  raised  by  him.  It  is  better,  in  discussions  as 
in  navigation — to  use  one  of  Mr.  Webster's  illustrations — to 
make  a  reckoning  and  see  where  we  are,  before  taking  a  new 
departure.  For  this  purpose  I  propose  to  recapitulate  and  ex 
amine  the  previous  points  of  our  controversy  as  briefly  as  pos 
sible  in  their  order. 

First,  the  three  points  raised  by  him  in  his  review;  and 
secondly,  the  two  raised  by  me  on  him  in  the  reply.  Let  these 
facts,  then,  be  kept  in  mind  by  your  readers : 

1.  Mr.  Curtis,  in  his  review,  said : 

"But  I  may  be  permitted  to  express  the  astonishment  with  which  I 
have  read  a  portion  of  Mr.  Stephens'  recent  publication,  in  which  he 
claims  that  Mr.  Webster,  in  the  later  years  of  his  life,  changed  his  opin 
ions  respecting  the  nature  of  the  Constitution,  and  became  a  convert,  or 
almost  a  convert,  to  the  views  of  State  sovereignty,  on  which  the  right 
of  State  secession  from  the  Union  was  claimed  by  Mr.  Calhoun  and  his 
disciples  as  a  right  under  the  Constitution." 

In  the  reply,  issue  was  joined  with  Mr.  Curtis  upon  the  fact 
that  there  was  any  such  statement,  assertion,  or  claim  in  a*y 
part  of  the  book  to  which  he  referred.  It  was  also  denied  that 
Mr.  Calhoun  or  his  disciples  ever  claimed  the  right  of  State 
Secession  from  the  Union  as  a  right  under  the  Constitution. 
Of  Mr.  Webster,  it  was  simply  affirmed  that,  in  1833,  he  had 
held  the  position  that  the  Constitution  was  not  a  Compact  be 
tween  the  States,  and  that,  subsequently,  in  his  argument  before 
the  Supreme  Court,  and  in  his  letter  to  the  Barings,  he  had 
used  language  which,  in  my  opinion,  showed  that  he  had  modi 
fied  the  opinions  so  previously  expressed  by  him  upon  that 
point.  It  is  also  affirmed  in  the  book  that,  in  1851,  at  Capon 
Springs,  he  spoke  in  unequivocal  language  of  the  Constitution 
as  a  Compact  to  which  the  States  were  parties.  The  proofs 
were  given.  Mr.  Curtis  admits  their  correctness.  Do  they  not 
fully  sustain  what  was  affirmed  in  the  book  ?  At  any  rate  thus 
stands  the  issue  between  us ;  and  how  does  Mr.  Curtis  treat  it 
in  his  rejoinder  ?  Does  he  pretend  to  show  that  there  is  any 
thing  in  the  book  to  sustain  his  statement,  as  it  stands  in  the 
review,  or  any  thing  which  should  have  caused  astonishment 
to  anybody  as  well  acquainted  with  the  facts  as  he  ought  to 


SUR-REJOINDER  OF  MR.  STEPHENS.  125 

have  been  ?  Does  he  even  undertake  to  show  that  he  was  cor 
rect  in  declaring  that  Mr.  Calhoun  or  his  disciples  claimed  the 
right  of  State  Secession  under  the  Constitution?  Does  he 
make  any  answer  to  my  respectful  appeal  to  him  to  give  any 
explanation  he  can  imagine  Mr.  Webster  could  possibly  have 
given  of  his  speech  before  the  Supreme  Court  referred  to,  with 
out  admitting  a  change  of  his  views  as  expressed  in  1833  ?  He 
does  not,  but  goes  off  in  his  sort  of  dissertation  upon  two  theo 
ries  concerning  the  nature  of  the  government.  Now,  I  say  in 
passing,  right  here,  to  Mr.  Curtis,  that  these  two  theories  of  the 
government  have  nothing  to  do  with  this  issue  between  us. 
That  was  the  isolated  point  whether  Mr.  Webster  had  or  had 
not  modified  or  changed  his  opinions  upon  the  subject  of  the 
Constitution  being  a  Compact  between  the  States.  I  ask  him 
also,  as  well  as  your  readers,  if  I  am  not  warranted  by  his 
silence  on  that  point  in  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  he  can 
not  explain  Mr.  Webster's  position  in  1839  without  admitting 
the  change  of  views  ascribed  to  him  in  the  book  ?  That  wras 
the  point  at  issue  between  him  and  me.  I  do  come  to  this 
conclusion,  and  am  perfectly  willing,  therefore,  so  far  as  I  am 
concerned,  to  let  the  controversy  on  that  point  rest  just  where 
and  as  it  stands. 

2.  Mr.  Curtis,  in  his  review,  said : 

"As  an  historian,  Mr.  Stephens  is  singularly  unfortunate.  He  cited 
Mr.  Webster  for  the  purpose  of  proving  that  he  had  come,  in  1851,  to 
regard  the  Constitution  as  a  compact  between  the  States,  yet  he  overlooked 
the  passages  in  the  same  speech  which  showed  that  he  did  not  so  regard 

it." 

This  was  a  grave  charge.  The  Italics  are  his.  The  reply 
was  that,  if  there  were  any  passages  in  the  speech  (the  Capon 
Springs  speech)  from  which  the  citation  was  made  that  did 
show,  or  tended  even  to  show,  that  he  did  not  regard  the  Con 
stitution  as  a  Compact  between  the  States,  as  his  language  cited 
clearly  showed  that  he  then  so  held  it  to  be,  they  had  escaped 
my  attention  at  the  time  the  citation  w^as  made ;  and  after  the 
most  diligent  search  I  was  still  unable  to  find  in  any  part  of 
the  speech  any  such  qualifying  language  as  he  intimated  was  to 
be  found  in  some  other  portions  of  it. 


126  THE  EE VIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

How  lias  Mr.  Curtis  met  this  issue  ?  Has  he  undertaken  to 
point  out  in  the  speech  any  such  passages  as  he  said  I  had  over 
looked  ?  He  has  not.  He  has  not  produced  one  word  from 
the  speech  which  shows,  or  tends  to  show,  that  Mr.  "Webster 
did  not  mean,  as  I  understood  him  by  the  language  cited,  to 
declare  that  the  Constitution  was  a  Compact  between  the  States, 
and  that  "  a  bargain  cannot  be  broken  on  one  side  and  still 
bind  the  other  side? " 

The  "  rejoinder  "  is  entirely  silent  upon  that  subject.  The 
conclusion  to  which  all  intelligent  readers  must  come,  it  seems 
to  me,  is  that  Mr.  Curtis  gives  up  that  point  in  issue  between 
us.  ~Not  without  some  restlessness,  it  is  true,  which  is  evinced 
in  the  expression  of  "impatience"  with  which  he  hears  "Mr. 
Webster  claimed  as  a  believer  in  the  doctrine  which  he  spent 
more  than  twenty  years  of  his  life  in  resisting,  and  which  he 
knew  would  ruin  us  at  last."  This  is,  perhaps,  wrhat  caused 
him  to  change  his  ground  and  endeavor  to  relieve  his  position 
as  well  as  he  could  by  plunging  into  other  matters. 

Now,  the  truth,  Mr.  Editor,  is  that  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  is  a  Compact  between  Sovereign  States.  This  is 
a  great  and  an  important  fact  in  our  history.  Upon  it  does 
depend  the  nature  and  character  of  our  government.  Mr. 
Webster's  position  on  that  subject  in  1833  is  utterly  untenable. 
Whether  he  subsequently  modified  or  changed  his  opinions 
upon  it  or  not,  however,  is  a  collateral  point  altogether.  The 
great  truth  that  it  is  such  a  Compact  is  established  in  the  book 
referred  to  as  clearly  as  any  historic  fact  can  be  in  this  or  any 
other  country.  The  argument  by  which  this  fact  is  so  estab 
lished,  Mr.  Curtis  does  not  pretend  to  answer.  He  has  not,  as 
yet,  attempted  to  do  it,  and  I  here  repeat  that  if  he  or  anybody 
else  shall  attempt  directly  to  assail  it,  either  in  premises  or  con 
clusions,  I  hold  myself  in  readiness  to  meet  the  assault,  let  it 
come  from  whatever  quarter  it  may.  In  the  book  it  was  barely 
incidentally  stated  as  my  opinion  that  Mr.  Webster  had  changed 
his  views  upon  that  subject ;  but  whether  he  had  changed  them 
or  not  has  no  bearing  whatever  upon  the  argument  itself, 
or  any  link  in  the  chain  of  its  structure.  It  was  to  the  inci 
dental  remarks  in  the  book,  upon  his  supposed  change  of  views, 


SUR-PvEJOINDER  OF  MR.   STEPHENS.  127 

that  Mr.  Curtis  took  exception.  How  much  he  has  taken  by 
his  motion  the  public  may  now  judge.  I  feel  perfectly  content 
with  this  issue  also  as  it  stands. 

3.  Mr.  Curtis,  in  his  review,  stated  that  I  had  committed  "  a 
singular  error"  in  the  book  in  regard  to  the  order  of  the  debate 
between  Mr.  Webster  and  Mr.  Calhoun  in  the  Senate  in  1833, 
and  argued  from  a  version  he  gave  of  it  that  110  regular  or  gen 
eral  rejoinder  to  Mr.  Calhoun's  speech  was  called  for  from  Mr. 
Webster. 

The  reply  to  this  by  me  set  forth  the  facts  of  the  case. 
These  show  that  no  such  error  was  committed  in  the  book. 
They  show  that  Mr.  Calhoun's  speech  did  present  new  views 
never  before  presented  in  the  Senate  by  him,  which  not  only 
called  for  but  demanded  an  answer,  or  an  abandonment  by  Mr. 
Webster  of  his  positions. 

To  this  issue  Mr.  Curtis  makes  no  allusion  whatever.  Is  not 
the  conclusion  legitimate  that  he  now  admits  there  was  no  error 
in  the  book  on  that  point  ?  I  so  regard  it. 

These  are  all  the  points  and  inaccuracies  in  the  book  speci 
fied  in  the  review.  So  much  for  them,  their  merits,  and  the 
final  disposition  of  them  on  my  part. 

Secondly.  Let  us  now  proceed  to  see  how  the  issues  stand 
on  those  made  on  the  other  side.  In  the  reply  two  errors  on 
his  own  part  are  set  forth. 

1 .  Mr.  Curtis  stated  in  the  review  that  the  revenue  laws  of 
the  United  States  had  been  obstructed  in  the  port  of  Charleston, 
South  Carolina,  by  the  nullification  acts  of  that  State  in  1832. 

In  my  reply  it  was  shown  that  these  acts  never  went  into 
operation  at  all,  and  could  not  have  obstructed  the  revenue 
laws.  The  protective  policy  was  agreed  to  be  abandoned  in 
Mr.  Clay's  Compromise  Bill,  which  passed  before  these  acts 
under  their  extension  were  to  go  into  operation.  South  Caro 
lina  being  satisfied  with  that  abandonment,  so  agreed  upon, 
these  acts  were  repealed  before  they  ever  went  into  effect. 

The  rejoinder  is  silent  upon  this  point.  The  conclusion  to 
be  drawn  from  this  is,  that  Mr.  Curtis  admits  that  he  committed 
an  error  himself  in  his  attempt  to  show  that  I  had  committed 
one. 


128  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

2.  Mr.  Curtis  made  a  statement  in  the  review  which  implied 
that  General  Jackson  approved  the  position  of  Mr.  Webster  in 
his  debate  with  Mr.  Calhoun  that  the  Constitution  was  not  a 
Compact  between  the  States. 

In  my  reply  it  was  shown  by  direct  proof  that  General  Jack 
son  did  not  give  that  part  of  Mr.  "Webster's  speech  any  such  ap 
proval. 

In  his  rejoinder  Mr.  Curtis  admits  the  proof  offered  by  me, 
showing  that  General  Jackson  did  not  approve  that  part  of  Mr. 
Webster's  speech.  This  proof  was  the  "  authorized  "  explana 
tion  of  certain  parts  of  his  proclamation  by  General  Jackson 
himself,  which  appeared  in  the  Washington  Globe  newspaper. 
But  while  he  admits  the  correctness  of  the  proof,  he  says  that 
the  "  old  hero  "  was  persuaded  by  the  conductors  of  that  paper 
to  let  them  put  forth  this  explanation  for  certain  electioneering 
purposes  ;  and  that  the  explanation,  upon  the  whole,  was  "  the 
merest  muddle,  from  which  no  man  can  extract  any  intelligible 
theory  of  the  nature  of  our  constitutional  system." 

Muddle  or  no  muddle,  as  a  whole,  in  presenting  a  "  theory  " 
of  the  nature  of  the  government,  it  was  certainly  very  clear  and 
explicit  on  the  point  at  issue  between  us.  This,  by  the  by,  is 
the  only  point  in  all  the  issues  between  us  to  which  Mr.  Curtis 
makes  the  slightest  allusion  in  his  so-called  "  rejoinder  "  ;  and 
after  thus  disposing  of  this  very  pointed  proof  so  offered,  which 
showed  he  was  wrong,  he  goes  into  a  defence  of  his  position, 
which  amounts  to  about  this  :  that  if  General  Jackson  did  not 
approve  that  part  of  Mr.  Webster's  speech,  other  distinguished 
Democrats  did — which  could  be  shown  by 'letters  in  his  posses 
sion  which  would  fill  a  volume  if  he  should  publish  them.  He 
chooses,  however,  to  publish  but  one  of  this  character,  and  that 
one  was  from  Mr.  Madison. 

'Now,  to  all  that  is  said  on  this  point  in  the  rejoinder,  I  have 
this  to  submit  in  answer :  1.  If  Mr.  Madison,  or  ever  so  many 
other  distinguished  Democrats  did  approve  that  part  of  Mr. 
Webster's  speech,  it  is  no  evidence  that  General  Jackson  did ; 
especially  in  the  face  of  his  explicit  declaration  that  he  did  not, 
and  can  have  no  bearing  whatever  upon  the  point*  between  us. 
2.  Mr.  Curtis  was  much  more  "unfortunate,"  I  think,  as  a 


SUK-KEJOISTDER  OF  ME.   STEPHENS.  129 

"logician"  in  citing  this  letter  to  Mr.  Madison,  to  sustain  him 
in  his  issue  with  me,  than  he  supposed  me  to  be  "  unfortunate  v 
"as  an  historian "  in  citing  Mr.  Webster's  Capon  Springs 
speech  in  the  book ;  for  this  letter  of  Mr.  Madison  shows  that 
even  he  did  not  concur  with  Mr.  Webster  on  the  main  point  in 
issue  between  him  and  Mr.  Calhoun,  and  which  was  in  issue 
between  Mr.  Curtis  and  myself  in  relation  to  the  extent  of  Gen 
eral  Jackson's  approval  of  the  principles  of  Mr.  Webster's 
speech  on  that  occasion.  That  point  was  as  to  the  Constitution 
being  a  Compact  between  the  States.  On  this  point  Mr. 
Madison's  language  in  the  very  letter  produced  by  Mr.  Curtis 
is  this: 

"  It  is  fortunate  when  disputed  theories  can  be  decided  by  undisputed 
facts.  And  here  the  undisputed  fact  is  that  the  Constitution  was  made 
by  the  people,  lut  as  embodied  in  the  several  States  who  were  parties  to  it, 
and,  therefore,  made  by  the  States  in  their  highest  authoritative  capacity" 

The  italics  are  mine.  This  part  of  the  letter  so  adduced  by 
Mr.  Curtis,  therefore,  shows  clearly  that  whatever  other  mo 
tives  Mr.  Madison  may  have  had  in  thus  congratulating  Mr. 
Webster  for  his  speech,  so  far  as  it  related  to  the  doctrine  of 
Nullification,  and  its  general  tenor  against  Secession  as  a  politic 
or  practicable  remedy  for  abuses  of  Federal  power,  he  evi 
dently  intended  to  set  him  right  on  one  point,  and  that  was 
that  the  Constitution  was  not  made  by  the  whole  people  of 
the  United  States  as  embodied  in  one  nation,  as  he  had  con 
tended,  but  that  it  was  "  made  ~by  the  States  in  their  highest 
authoritative  capacity  !  "  That  is,  in  their  sovereign  capacity, 
and,  being  so  made  by  them,  was  of  necessity  a  Compact  be 
tween  them  ! 

This  is  the  clear  import  of  this  language  of  Mr.  Madison,  in 
which  he  meant  nothing  more  than  to  reaffirm  the  principles  of 
his  own  celebrated  resolutions  in  the  Yirginia  Legislature  in 
179 8,  and  his  report  on  them  in  1799.  It  is  true,  Mr.  Madison 
was  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  Nullification,  as,  perhaps,  three- 
fourths  of  the  Democratic  party  in  the  United  States  were.  He 
was  also  opposed  to  Secession  as  a  proper  or  practicable  remedy 
against  the  abuses  of  Federal  power  in  the  matter  of  the 


130  THE  EE VIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

protective  policy,  as  were  a  large  majority  of  even  Southern 
Democrats. 

Mr.  Webster's  speech,  so  far  as  it  related  to  these  questions 
and  in  this  mew  of  them,  was  approved  by  this  entire  class  of 
Democrats,  North  and  South ;  but  neither  Mr.  Madison,  nor 
any  other  distinguished  Democrat  anywhere,  from  Gen.  Jackson 
and  Mr.  Livingston,  who  wrote  his  proclamation,  down  to  the 
lowest  on  the  list,  ever  approved  in  terms,  I  venture  to  say,  that 
part  of  the  speech  which  denied  that  the  Constitution  was  a 
Compact  between  the  States.  If  Mr.  Curtis  can  produce  one 
letter  out  of  the  mass  he  has  from  men  of  his  class  which  does 
so  expressly  endorse  that  part  of  Mr.  Webster's  speech,  he  is 
respectfully  asked  to  do  so.  The  one  which  he  selected  from  all 
the  rest  for  this  purpose,  certainly  does  not.  Mr.  Madison,  in 
this  congratulatory  letter,  delighted  with  certain  portions  of  Mr. 
Webster's  speech,  and  the  high  tone  of  patriotism  which 
breathed  through  the  whole  of  it,  seems,  in  the  spontaneous  ex 
pression  of  his  admiration  of  those  portions  which  pleased  him 
so  much,  to  have  acted,  in  not  permitting  even  this  occasion  to 
pass  without  inculcating  an  important  truth,  in  a  polite  way, 
upon  the  very  wise  maxim  of  Pope  : 

"  Blunt  truths  more  mischief  than  nice  falsehoods  do  : 
Men  must  be  taught  as  if  you  taught  them  not, 
And  things  unknown  proposed  as  things  forgot." 

Whatever  Mr.  Curtis  may  think  of  it,  I  very  much  question 
if  Mr.  Webster  did  not  see  and  feel  the  point  and  force  of  this 
language  of  Mr.  Madison,  so  courteously  and  urbanely  ex 
pressed.  He  must  have  seen  and  must  have  felt  that,  while 
this  great  statesman  was  highly  gratified  with  the  speech,  as  a 
whole ;  yet,  upon  the  main  point  at  issue  between  him  and  Mr. 
Calhoun,  his  distinguished  correspondent  differed  toto  coelo  with 
him. 

So  much,  therefore,  upon  this  point,  the  only  one  of  the 
former  issues  between  Mr.  Curtis  and  myself  to  which  he  has 
alluded  in  his  rejoinder.  I  have  gone  through  with  all  of  them. 
Your  readers  will  see  clearly  just  how  the  controversy  upon  all 
of  them  stands  at  present.  Here  I  take  my  leave  of  them,  and 


SUR-REJOINDER  OF  MR.   STEPHENS.  131 

am  perfectly  willing  to  let  them  rest  just  where  and  as  they 
stand,  if  Mr.  Curtis  is. 

I  now  propose  to  take  some  notice  of  his  new  matter.  In 
doing  this,  I  premise,  by  saying  to  Mr.  Curtis  and  to  your 
readers  that  the  questions  which  are  involved  in  arriving  at  a 
correct  knowledge  of  the  nature  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  are  not  speculative  questions  growing  out  of  theo 
ries  of  any  sort.  They  are  questions  of  fact,  as  Mr.  Madison 
says  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  AVebster — questions  of  unclisputable 
facts,  to  be  settled  by  evidence  of  the  highest  order.  This  evi 
dence  is  to  be  found  in  the  records  and  the  documentary  history 
of  the  country,  against  which  no  speculations  or  theories  can 
have  any  weight  with  those  whose  sole  object  is  the  investigation 
of  truth.  The  proper  solution  of  all  these  questions  requires  no 
resort  to  the  subtleties  of  metaphysics  in  any  way.  They  are 
clear  and  plain,  when  properly  presented,  to  the  commonest 
understanding — even  to  "  the  wayfaring  man,  though  he  be  a 
fool."  They  are  only  mystified  when  men,  by  resorting  to 
speculations,  make  a  "  muddle  "  of  their  theories  upon  them. 
These  are  the  questions  which  are  discussed  in  other  parts  of 
the  book,  which  Mr.  Curtis  did  not  undertake  to  review ;  and 
the  indisputable  facts  which  must  decide  them,  according  to  the 
inexorable  principles  of  logic  in  the  forum  of  reason,  are  therein 
fully  produced  and  regularly  presented.  These  facts,  thus  ar 
rayed  and  set  forth,  establish  the  conclusion,  beyond  the  power 
of  successful  assault,  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
is  a  Government  of  States,  made  by  States  and  for  States — a 
Federal  Republic  in  every  sense  of  the  term,  or  "a  Confeder 
ated  Republic,"  as  Washington  styled  it,  which  means  the  same 
thing.  It  is,  in  other  words,  just  such  a  union  of  States  as  Yat- 
tel  described  in  the  quotation  cited  in  the  reply.  This  the  facts 
of  our  history  show. 

It  is  further  maintained  in  the  book,  as  a  sound  and  indis 
putable  principle,  that  where  States  are  thus  united,  when  one 
or  more  of  them  palpably  and  intentionally  violate  any  of  the 
terms  or  articles  of  their  union,  or  fail  to  fulfil  their  obligations 
according  to  those  terms,  the  others  are  thereby  absolved  from 
their  obligations  under  the  Compact,  and  have  a  perfect  right  to 


132  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

withdraw  from  a  Union  so  formed — if,  in  so  doing,  they  do  their 
former  associates  no  other  injury  than  that  which  results  from 
the  loss  to  them  of  the  advantages  which  the  Union  secured  to 
them  ;  and  they  have  this  perfect  right  so  to  withdraw  without 
any  rightful  or  just  power  or  authority  on  the  part  of  their 
former  confederates  to  prevent  their  withdrawal. 

It  is  also  maintained  in  the  book,  as  an  unquestionable  fact 
in  our  history,  that  one  of  the  articles  of  our  Union  was  openly 
and  avowedly  broken  by  several  of  the  Northern  States.  The 
article  or  clause  in  the  Constitution  so  violated  was  one  "  with 
out  which,"  as  declared  by  Judge  Story  from  the  bench  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  "  the  Union  never  would 
have  been  formed." 

Upon  these  points  of  our  history  and  indisputable  principles 
of  public  law,  of  reason,  of  right,  and  of  justice,  and  not  upon 
any  "  muddled  "  theory  of  any  sort,  it  is  maintained  in  the  book 
that  the  war  which  was  inaugurated  and  waged  by  the  Northern 
States  against  the  Southern  States  to  prevent  their  withdrawal 
from  the  Union,  after  their  own  open  and  palpable  violation 
of  their  Constitutional  obligations,  was  utterly  without  rightful 
authority,  either  by  the  Constitution  or  the  laws  of  nations ; 
that  it  was  nothing  short  of  a  gross  and  wanton  aggression 
against  unoffending  neighboring  States ;  founded  entirely  upon 
usurpation,  and  in  direct  violation  of  the  fundamental  principles 
upon  which  American  independence  was  declared  and  achieved. 
— That  independence  was  not  a  national  independence  of  the 
people  of  all  the  Colonies  united  in  one  nation,  as  speculative 
writers  by  "  muddled"  theories  have  attempted  to  represent  it 
to  be ;  but  it  was  the  independence  of  the  States  severally  and 
separately.  The  principle  upon  which  it  rested,  was  the  Sover 
eign  Bight  of  Local  Self-Government  in  the  people  of  each 
Colony  or  State.  The  moving  cause  to  it  was  the  assault  made 
by  the  British  Parliament  upon  the  chartered  rights  of  Massa 
chusetts.  It  was  against  this  that  the  "  cry  "  was  raised  in  Vir 
ginia,  and  rang  in  shouts  from  the  St.  Croix  to  the  Alatamaha, 
from  the  seaboard  to  the  Alleghanies :  "  The  cause  of  Boston  is 
the  cause  of  us  all ! "  The  cause  of  Boston  then  was  the  Sover 
eign  Eight  of  Local  Self-Government.  This  was  the  cause  which 


SUR-REJOINDER  OF  MR.   STEPHENS.  133 

triumphed  by  the  joint  action  of  all  the  States  in  the  achieve 
ment  of  their  separate  sovereignty  and  independence. 

Mr.  Curtis,  in  his  rambling  through  the  mazes  of  the  new 
matter  introduced  in  his  "  rejoinder,"  is  pleased  to  say : 

"  *  If  the  Constitution  was  a  Compact  between  Sovereign  States,'  the 
Compact  was  broken  by  the  secession  of  the  Southern  States ;  and  it  was 
perfectly  legitimate  for  Congress  to  make  war  upon  the  States  themselves, 
to  conquer  them  as  sovereign  parties  to  a  war,  and,  having  conquered 
them,  to  suppress  their  governments,  and  to  mould  them  just  as  it  would 
mould  a  foreign  territory  conquered  by  arms  or  acquired  by  treaty." 

Further  on  in  the  same  strain  he  says : 

"  I  confess,  Mr.  Editor,  when  I  see  or  hear  persons  who  are  accounted 
Democrats  maintaining  State  Rights  upon  the  Calhoun  theory  of  our  sys 
tem,  I  can  only  wish  they  would  point  out  to  me  upon  what  possible 
ground  of  public  law  or  political  science  they  can  complain  of  what  has 
been  done  by  Congress  to  the  South." 

Now,  in  reply  to  this,  you  will  allow  me  to  say  to  Mr.  Curtis, 
that  I  will  promptly  undertake  to  comply  with  his  wish  in  this 
respect.  This  I  do,  however,  not  as  one  accounted  a  Democrat 
"  upon  the  Calhoun  theory  of  our  system,"  but  as  one  who  pre 
sumes  to  know  something  of  the  established  principles  of  "  pub 
lic  law  "  as  announced  by  those  to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  all 
we  have  of  what  may  be  called  "  political  science." 

The  book  referred  to  shows  that  he  need  not  have  qualified 
his  first  sentence  quoted  above  with  an  "if."  That  "if"  is  for 
ever  disposed  of,  unless  the  argument  in  the  book  is  shown  to 
be  erroneous.  This  neither  he  nor  anybody  else  has  as  yet  at 
tempted  to  do,  so  far  as  I  know.  The  Constitution  is  a  Com 
pact  between  Sovereign  States,  and  from  this  very  fact  the 
enormity  of  the  wrongs  and  outrages  which  have  been  com 
mitted  by  Congress  upon  the  South  do  but  the  more  distinctly 
and  glaringly  appear !  This  contract  was  not  broken,  however 
by  the  Secession  of  the  Southern  States,  as  Mr.  Curtis  so  flip 
pantly  assumes.  I  cannot  permit  myself  to  believe  that  he 
would,  upon  cool  reflection,  venture  to  stake  his  reputation  upon 
the  denial  of  the  correctness  of  the  position  of  the  book,  that  it 
was  first  intentionally  and  avowedly  violated  by  several  of  the 
Northern  States.  No  one  knows  better  than  Mr.  Curtis,  how 


134:  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

devoted  I  was  to  the  Union  of  the  States  under  the  Constitution, 
and  how  he  and  I  labored  together  in  the  fall  of  1860  to  get  the 
"  offending  States"  to  return  to  the  discharge  of  their  obligations 
under  it,  that  the  Union  might  be  preserved.  He  knows  how 
utterly  opposed  I  was  to  Secession  as  a  remedy  for  even  this 
breach  of  faith  by  the  Northern  members  of  the  Union ;  not  a 
whit  less  so  than  Mr.  Madison  was  to  the  like  remedy  for  the 
wrongs  and  oppressions  of  the  Protective  policy.  He  knows 
equally  well,  too,  that  I  then  held  as  I  now  do,  whether  he  did 
or  not,  that  the  "  aggrieved  States  "  would  be  perfectly  justified, 
upon  the  principles  of  public  law  and  natural  justice,  in  a  resort 
to  this  remedy  in  consequence  of  this  continued  breach  of  the 
Compact,  if  they,  in  their  sovereign  capacity,  should  so  decide 
to  do ;  just  as  I  doubt  not  Mr.  Madison  would  have  held  in  the 
case  of  the  Protective  policy  if  the  abandonment  of  the  principle 
upon  which  it  was  based  had  not  been  agreed  upon,  as  it  was, 
and  if  in  consequence  of  its  continuance  this  " ultima  ratio" 
had  been  resorted  to  by  the  States  whose  vital  interests  were 
supposed  to  be  affected  by  it,  even  though  it  had  been  done 
against  his  judgment  as  to  its  expediency.  He  knows  full  well 
that  Secession  was  no  favorite  remedy  with  me  for  evils  of  any 
sort  under  the  Union.  He  knows  also  that,  notwithstanding 
all  the  efforts  that  were  made  everywhere,  the  "offending 
States  "  wrould  not,  and  did  not  right  themselves  in  the  matter 
wherein  they  were  so  grossly  derelict.  And  whether  he  will, 
or  will  not,  now  seriously  deny  that  that  Constitution  was  thus 
openly  and  avowedly  violated  by  several  of  the  Northern  States, 
cannot  affect  the  great  fact  in  our  history  that  it  was.  This 
will  forever  remain  one  of  the  imperishable  truths  in  the  annals 
of  this  country. 

The  Compact  was  first  broken  by  more  than  half  of  the  very 
States  which  projected  and  waged  this  war  professedly  with  no 
object  but  to  make  their  confederates  stand  to  their  part  of  the 
bargain,  while  they  most  notoriously,  if  not  shamefully,  repudi 
ated  their  own  obligations  under  it ! 

Was  not  this  a  great  wrong  to  the  Seceding  States,  as  well 
as  a  huge  crime  against  humanity  ?  Does  the  history  of  the 
world  present  a  parallel  of  insolent  and  arrogant  iniquity  ?  The 


SUR-REJOINDER  OF  MR.   STEPHENS.  135 

use  of  power  by  which  this  most  monstrous  outrage'  upon  right 
and  justice  was  perpetrated  resulted  in  no  way  from  the  Compact 
view  of  the  Constitution.  It  sprang  from,  and  was  claimed 
from,  that  "  muddled  "  theory  which  assumed  that  the  States, 
by  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  had  alienated  a  portion  of 
their  sovereignty  beyond  their  power  of  a  rightful  resumption 
of  it,  and  that  that  portion  retained  must  yield  to  the  portion 
surrendered.  This  theoretic  claim  of  power,  in  violation  of  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  whole  structure  of  the  Govern 
ment,  was  the  prime  and  leading  cause  of  the  war.  To  this  is 
to  be  attributed  all  the  enormities  of  its  inception,  prosecution, 
and  present  results.  Moreover,  the  Compact  view  of  the  Con 
stitution  did  not  originate  with  Mr.  Calhoun,  or  Democrats  of 
his  faith,  respecting  State  Rights.  It  originated  with  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution  itself,  and  was  not  denied  by  any 
man  of  note  for  forty  years  of  our  history.  It  was  the  view  of 
Hamilton,  Ames,  Ellsworth,  Sherman,  Madison,  Jefferson,  and 
"Washington,  to  say  nothing  of  others.  It  was  because  he 
thought  this  construction,  which  has  in  later  times  been  put 
upon  it  through  the  subtleties  of  a  "  muddled "  theory,  would 
be  put  upon  it,  that  Patrick  Henry  opposed  its  ratification. 
But  it  was  denied  by  the  friends  and  advocates  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  in  every  State  Convention  where  the  question  was  raised, 
that  this  construction  could  possibly  be  put  upon  it,  in  the  face 
of  the  notorious  facts  attending  its  formation.  To  quiet  appre 
hensions,  however,  the  Tenth  Amendment  was  very  soon  unani 
mously  adopted  by  the  States,  to  settle  that  question  forever. 

The  great  truths  relating  to  the  nature  and  character  of  our 
Federal  Republic,  peculiar  in  many  respects  as  it  is,  were  dis 
tinctly  set  forth  by  Mr.  Jefferson  in  his  Kentucky  Resolutions 
of  1798,  long  before  the  days  of  Mr.  Calhoun.  They  are  based 
upon  the  fact,  that  the  Constitution  is  a  Compact  between  Sov 
ereign  States.  These  Resolutions  constituted  the  creed  of  the 
Democratic  party  of  that  day,  and  of  the  only  true  Democratic 
party  or  Constitutional  party  which  has  ever  existed  in  this 
country  since,  or  ever  will  hereafter.  Under  the  administration 
of  the  Government  according  to  the  principles  of  these  Resolu 
tions,  for  sixty  years,  -no  country  in  the  world  ever  was  more 


136  THE  KEVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

happy,  peaceful,  and  prosperous  than  ours  was  ;  and  I  take  this 
occasion  to  say  to  Mr.  Curtis  that  neither  he  nor  anybody  else 
may  ever  expect,  or  even  hope  for,  a  restoration  of  those  days 
of  peace,  quiet,  and  happiness,  with  real  Constitutional  Liberty, 
until  the  administration  of  the  Federal  government  is  brought 
back  to  these  principles :  not  by  force,  not  by  arms,  but  by  the 
expulsion  from  power  of  those  who  have  committed  these  mon 
strous  usurpations.  This  expulsion  is  to  be  by  the  people  at 
the  ballot-box!  In  this  way  to-day,  if  they  were  wise,  the 
"  cry  "  would  go  forth  throughout  the  entire  North  :  "  The  cause 
of  Virginia  is  the  cause  of  us  all  ? "  For  they  may  depend  upon 
it  that  what  is  now  being  enacted  in  that  old  and  renowned 
Commonwealth,  as  well  as  in  other  Southern  States,  will  sooner 
or  later  be  enacted  in  their  own  States,  if  that  theory  and  claim 
of  power  under  it,  from  which  all  these  outrages  legitimately 
spring,  is  not  entirely  and  speedily  abandoned.  It  is  utterly 
inconsistent  with  that  Sovereign  Right  of  Local  Self-Govern- 
ment  on  the  part  of  the  several  States  of  this  Union  upon  which 
our  entire  system  of  American  free  institutions  is  based,  and 
upon  which  alone  these  institutions  can  be  maintained  and 

perpetuated. 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 


ARTICLE  IY. 

ME.  STEPHENS'  REPLY  TO  EON.   HORACE  GREELETS 
CRITICISM  ON  THE  WORK. 

LIBERTY  HALL, 
CRAWFORDVILLE,  GA.,  August  17,  18G9. 

Messrs.  Editors  of  the  Constitutionalist,  Augusta,  Ga.  : 

WILL  you  please  allow  me  tlie  use  of  your  columns  to  reply 
to  an  article  in  a  late  number  of  the  "New  York  Tribune,  writ 
ten  by  the  Hon.  Horace  Greeley,  and  which  requires  some  no 
tice  from  me. 

In  this  article,  Mr.  Greeley,  after  alluding  to  my  work  upon 
the  "War  between  the  States,"  and  late  letters  in  reply  to 
Judge  Nicholas  upon  the  same  subject,  goes  on  to  say : 

"  Mr.  Stephens'  theory  is,  that  the  Union  was  a  mere  league  of  Sov 
ereign  Powers ;  and,  of  course,  dissoluble  at  the  pleasure  of  those  Powers 
respectively  —  of  a  minority,  or,  in  fact,  of  any  one  of  them,  so  far  as  that 
one  is  concerned.  And  he  quotes  sundry  conspicuous  Republicans  — 
among  them,  Abraham  Lincoln,  Benjamin  F.  Wade,  and  Horace  Greeley 
—  as  having,  at  some  time,  favored  this  view. 

"  Mr.  Stephens  is  utterly  mistaken.  Leaving  others  to  speak  for  them 
selves,  we  can  assure  him  that  Horace  Greeley  never,  at  any  moment  of 
his  life,  imagined  that  a  single  State,  or  a  dozen  of  States,  could  right 
fully  dissolve  the  Union.  The  doctrine  of  Horace  Greeley,  which  Mr. 
Stephens  has  confounded  with  State  Sovereignty,  is  that  of  Popular  Sov 
ereignty,  or  the  right  of  a  people  to  recast  or  modify  their  political  insti 
tutions  and  relations  —  the  right  set  forth  by  Thomas  Jefferson  in  the 
Declaration  of  American  Independence,  as  follows  : 

"  '  We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident ;  that  all  men  are  created 
equal ;  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  inalienable 
rights  ;  that  among  these  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness ; 
that,  to  secure  these  rights,  Governments  are  instituted  among  men,  de 
riving  their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed ;  that,  when 
ever  any  form  of  Government  becomes  destructive  of  these  ends,  it  is  the 


138  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

right  of  the  people  to  alter  or  abolish  it,  and  to  institute  a  new  Govern 
ment,  laying  its  foundation  on  such  principles,  and  organizing  its  powers 
in  such  form  as  to  them  shall  seem  most  likely  to  effect  their  safety  and 
happiness.' 

"  This  doctrine  of  Jefferson's  we  have  ever  received ;  and  we  have  held 
it  precisely  as  it  reads.  The  same  is  true,  we  presume,  of  Messrs.  Lincoln, 
Wade,  and  other  Republicans.  Mr.  Stephens  may  say  it  justifies  the  so- 
called  Secession  of  the  South ;  we  think  differently.  AYe  hold  that  Seces 
sion  was  the  work  of  a  violent,  subversive,  bullying,  terrorizing  minority, 
overawing  and  stifling  the  voice  of  a  decided  majority  of  the  Southern 
people.  The  facts  which  justify  this  conclusion  are  embodied  in  The 
American  Conflict,  more  especially  in  vol.  i.,  chap.  xxii.  According  to  Mr. 
Stephens'  conception,  a  majority  of  the  people  of  Delaware,  consisting 
of  less  than  100,000  persons,  might  lawfully  dissolve  the  Union;  but 
the  whole  population  of  New  York  south  of  the  Highlands  —  at  least 
1,500,000  in  number — could  do  nothing  of  the  kind.  Mr.  Stephens'  may 
possibly  be  the  true  doctrine,  but  it  certainly  never  was  ours,  nor  of  any 
Republican  so  far  as  we  know.  The  right  we  affirm  is  not  based  on  the 
Federal  Constitution,  but  is  before  and  above  any  and  all  Constitutions." 

I  quote  him  in  full  on  the  points  to  be  commented  on,  that 
your  readers  and  the  public  may  thoroughly  understand  them, 
and  be  able  to  judge  fairly  and  justly  between  us,  and  come  to 
a  correct  conclusion  as  to  whether  /  or  he  was  or  is  mistaken  in 
the  premises. 

Now  what  is  affirmed  by  me  in  the  first  volume  of  the 
"  Constitutional  Yiew  of  the  Late  War  between  the  States," 
and  what  Mr.  Greeley,  with  other  Republicans,  is  quoted  there 
in  to  sustain,  is  this  : 

"Men  of  great  ability  of  our  own  day  —  men  who  stand  high  in  the 
Republican  ranks  at  this  time,  who  had  and  have  no  sympathy  with  the 
late  Southern  movement,  are  fully  committed  to  the  rightfulness  of  that 
movement.  Mr.  Lincoln  himself  was  fully  committed  to  it.  Besides 
him,  I  refer  you  to  but  two  others  of  this  class,  now  prominent  actors 
in  public  affairs.  They  are  Senator  Wade,  of  Ohio,  at  this  time  Vice- 
President  of  the  United  States,  and  Mr.  Greeley,  of  the  New  York 
Tribune,  who  is  *  a  power  behind  the  throne  greater  than  the  throne 
itself.' " 

Then  after  quoting  Senator  Wade,  with  comments  on  his 
utterances,  I  go  on  to  quote  from  the  New  York  Tribune,  of 
the  9th  of  November,  1860,  an  article  which  is  acknowledged 
by  Mr.  Greeley  to  be  his,  and  published  in  his  history  of  the 
war,  the  "American  Conflict,"  page  359,  vol.  i.,  as  follows: 


ME.   STEPHENS'  REPLY  TO  MR.   GREELEY.  139 

"  The  telegraph  informs  us  that  most  of  the  Cotton  States  are  medita 
ting  a  withdrawal  from  the  Union,  because  of  Lincoln's  election.  Very 
well :  they  have  a  right  to  meditate,  and  meditation  is  a  profitable  em 
ployment  of  leisure.  We  have  a  chronic,  invincible  disbelief  in  Disunion 
as  a  remedy  for  either  Northern  or  Southern  grievances.  We  cannot 
see  any  necessary  connection  between  the  alleged  disease  and  this  ultra- 
heroic  remedy ;  still,  we  say,  if  any  one  sees  fit  to  meditate  Disunion, 
let  him  do  so  unmolested.  That  was  a  base  and  hypocritic  row  that  was 
once  raised  at  Southern  dictation,  about  the  ears  of  John  Quincy  Adams, 
because  he  presented  a  petition  for  the  dissolution  of  the  Union.  The 
petitioner  had  a  right  to  make  the  request ;  it  was  the  Member's  duty  to 
present  it.  And  now,  if  the  Cotton  States  consider  the  value  of  the 
Union  debatable,  we  maintain  their  perfect  right  to  discuss  it.  Nay  :  we 
hold  with  Jefferson,  to  the  inalienable  right  of  Communities  to  alter  or 
abolish  forms  of  Government  that  have  become  oppressive  or  injurious ; 
and,  if  the  Cotton  States  shall  decide  that  they  can  do  letter  out  of  the  Union 
than  in  it,  we  insist  on  letting  them  go  in  peace.  The  right  to  secede  may  le 
a  revolutionary  one,  l)ut  it  exists  nevertheless;  and  ice  do  not  see  Iww  one 
party  can  have  a  right  to  do  what  another  party  has  a  right  to  prevent.  We 
must  ever  resist  the  asserted  right  of  any  State  to  remain  in  the  Union,  and 
nullify  or  defy  the  laws  thereof  ;  to  withdraw  from  the  Union*  is  quite 
another  matter.  And,  whenever  a  considerable  section  of  our  Union  shall 
deliberately  resolve  to  go  out,  we  shall  resist  all  coercive  measures  de 
signed  to  keep  it  in.  We  hope  never  to  live  in  a  Republic,  whereof  one 
section  is  pinned  to  the  residue  by  bayonets. 

"  But,  while  we  thus  uphold  the  practical  liberty,  if  not  the  abstract 
right  of  Secession,  we  must  insist  that  the  step  be  taken,  if  it  ever  shall 
be,  with  the  deliberation  and  gravity  befitting  so  momentous  an  issue. 
Let  ample  time  be  given  for  reflection  ;  let  the  subject  be  fully  canvassed 
before  the  people  ;  and  let  a  popular  vote  be  taken  in  every  case,  before 
Secession  is  decreed.  Let  the  people  be  told  just  why  they  are  asked  to 
break  up  the  Confederation ;  let  them  have  both  sides  of  the  question 
fully  presented ;  let  them  reflect,  deliberate,  then  vote ;  and  let  the  act 
of  Secession  be  the  echo  of  an  unmistakable  popular  fiat.  A  judgment 
thus  rendered,  a  demand  for  Separation  so  backed,  would  either  be  ac 
quiesced  in  without  the  effusion  of  blood,  or  those  who  rushed  upon  car 
nage  to  defy  and  defeat  it,  would  place  themselves  clearly  in  the  wrong." 

I  give  above,  this  quotation  in  full,  as  I  did  in  the  book 
referred  to,  that  no  injustice  may  be  done  to  him  by  partial 
extracts. 

What  I  quoted  him  to  sustain,  was,  as  clearly  appears,  the 
riglitfiilness  of  Secession  in  itself,  and  no  particular  theory  of 
mine  touching  the  principles  upon  which  it  was  based.  Does 


140  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

not  the  article  from  his  own  paper  and  book,  above  spread  be 
fore  jour  readers,  fully  sustain  my  affirmation  for  which  the 
quotation  was  made  ?  Was  I "  utterly  mistaken  f  "  Or  did  I  in 
any  way  confound  State  Sovereignty  with  Popular  Sovereign 
ty  ?  "What  difference  Mr.  Greeley  sees  between  State  Sover 
eignty  and  Popular  Sovereignty  I  know  not.  By  State  Sover 
eignty  I  understand  the  sovereignty  of  the  people  composing  a 
State  in  an  organized  political  body.  But  what  I  affirmed,  and 
quoted  him  to  sustain,  rested  upon  no  distinction  between  these 
phrases.  It  was  simply  as  to  the  rightfulness  of  the  act  in  it 
self,  on  the  part  of  the  people  of  a  State,  without  reference  to 
the  source  of  the  right.  My  comments  on  this  question  in  the 
book,  page  518,  are  as  follows.  I  give  them  in  full  also,  that  it 
may  be  clearly  seen  that  no  injustice  was  done  to  him  : 

"  What  better  argument  could  I  make  to  show  the  rightfulness  of 
Secession,  if  the  Southern  States,  of  their  own  good  will  and  pleasure, 
chose  to  resort  to  it,  even  for  no  other  cause  than  Mr.  Lincoln's  election, 
than  is  herein  set  forth  in  his  own  pointed,  strong,  and  unmistakable 
language  ?  It  is  true,  he  waives  all  questions  of  Compact  between  the 
States.  He  goes  deeper  into  fundamental  principles,  and  plants  the  right 
upon  the  eternal  truths  announced  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 
That  is  bringing  up  principles,  which  I  have  not  discussed,  not  because  I 
do  not  endorse  them  as  sound  and  correct,  to  the  word  and  letter,  but  be 
cause  it  was  not  necessary  for  my  purpose.  Upon  these  immutable  prin 
ciples,  the  justifiablen  ess  of  Georgia  in  her  Secession  Ordinance  of  the  19th 
of  January,  1861,  will  stand  clearly  established  for  all  time  to  come.  For 
if,  with  less  than  one  hundred  thousand  population,  she  was  such  a  people 
in  1776  as  had  the  unquestionable  right  to  alter  and  change  their  form  of 
Government  as  they  pleased,  how  much  more  were  they  such  a  people, 
with  more  than  ten  times  the  number  in  1861  ?  The  same  principle  ap 
plies  to  all  the  States  which  quit  the  old  and  joined  the  new  Confeder 
ation.  Mr.  Greeley  here  speaks  of  the  Union  as  a  Confederation  and  not  a 
Nation.  This  was,  perhaps,  the  unconscious  utterance  of  a  great  truth 
when  the  true  spirit  was  moving  him. 

"  The  State  of  Georgia  did  not  take  this  step,  however,  in  withdraw 
ing  from  the  Confederation,  without  the  most  thorough  discussion.  It 
is  true  it  was  not  a  dispassionate  discussion.  Men  seldom,  if  ever,  enter 
into  such  discussions  with  perfect  calmness,  or  even  that  degree  of  calm 
ness  with  which  all.  such  subjects  ought  to  be  considered.  But  the  sub 
ject  was  fully  canvassed  before  the  people.  Both  sides  were  strongly  pre 
sented.  In  the  very  earnest  remonstrance  against  this  measure  made  by 


ME.   STEPHENS'  KEPLY  TO  MR.   GBEELEY.  141 

me,  on  the  14th  of  November,  1860,  to  which  you  have  alluded,  was  an 
appeal  equally  earnest  for  just  such  a  vote  as  he  suggests,  in  order  that 
the  action  of  the  State  on  the  subject  might  be  'the  echo  of  an  unmistak 
able  popular  fiat.'  On  the  same  occasion  I  did  say,  in  substance,  just 
what  he  had  so  aptly  said  before,  that  the  people  of  Geogia,  in  their  Sov 
ereign  capacity,  had  the  right  to  secede  if  they  chose  to  do  so,  and  that 
in  this  event  of  their  so  determining  to  do,  upon  a  mature  consideration 
of  the  question,  that  I  should  bow  in  submission  to  the  majesty  of  their 
will  so  expressed ! 

"  This,  when  so  said  by  me,  is  what  it  seems  was  '  the  dead  fly  in  the 
ointment '  of  that  speech,  so  sadly  '  marring  its  general  perfume.'  This 
was  '  the  distinct  avowal  of  the  right  of  the  State  to  overrule  my  personal 
convictions  and  plunge  me,'  as  he  says,  '  into  treason  to  the  Nation.' 

"  Was  not  the  same  '  dead  fly  in  the  ointment '  of  his  article  of  the  9th 
of  November,  only  five  days  before  ?  And  if  going  with  my  State  in 
what  he  declared  she  had  a  perfect  right  to  do,  plunged  me  into  treason 
to  the  Nation,  is  he  not  clearly  an  accessory  before  the  fact,  by  a  rule  of 
construction  not  more  strained  than  that  laid  down  in  the  trial  of  State 
cases  by  many  judges  not  quite  so  notoriously  infamous  as  Jeffreys?  By 
a  rule  not  more  strained  than  that  which  would  make  out  treason  in  the 
act  itself!  But  I  do  not  admit  the  rule  in  its  application  either  to  the  ac 
cessory  or  the  principal." 

So  much  for  the  allegation  that  /was  utterly  mistaken  ! 

Now  let  me  turn  upon  Mr.  Greeley  and  ask,  how  it  is  with 
him  in  the  premises  ?  Was  Tie  not  "  utterly  mistaken  "  when 
he  said  so  vauntingly  for  himself  in  the  article  now  under  re 
view,  "  Horace  Greeley  never  at  any  moment  of  his  life  imagined 
that  a  single  State  or  a  dozen  of  States  could  rightly  dissolve  the 
Union!" 

Did  he  not  expressly  say,  on  the  9th  of  November,  1860, 
through  the  columns  of  the  Tribune,  that  "if  the  Cotton  States 
shall  decide  that  they  can  do  ~better  out  of  the  Union  than  in  it, 
we  insist  on  letting  them  go  in  peace.  The  right  to  secede  may 
be  a  revolutionary  one,  hut  it  exists  nevertheless ;  and  we  do  not 
see  how  one  party  can  have  a  right  to  do  what  another  party 
has  a  right  to  prevent.  We  must  ever  resist  the  asserted  right 
of  any  State  to  remain  in  the  Union,  and  nullify  or  defy  the 
laws  thereof ;  to  withdraw  from  the  Union  is  quite  another 
matter  !  " 

But,  besides  what  I  quoted  him  as  saying,  did  he  not,  on  the 


142  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

17th  day  of  December,  1860,  three  days  before  the  Secession  of 
South  Carolina,  in  the  Tribune,  assert : 

"If  it"  (the  Declaration  of  Independence)  "justified  the  Secession  from 
the  British  Empire  of  three  millions  of  colonists  in  1776,  we  do  not  see  why 
it  would  not  justify  the  Secession  of  five  millions  of  Southrons  from  the  Fed 
eral  Union  in  1861.  If  we  are  mistaken  on  this  point,  why  does  not  some  one 
attempt  to  show  wherein  and  why  ?  " 

Again :  Did  he  not  in  the  Tribune,  on  the  23d  day  of  Feb 
ruary,  1861,  five  days  after  the  inauguration  of  President  Davis, 
at  Montgomery,  use  this  language  : 

"  We  have  repeatedly  said,  and  we  once  more  insist,  that  the  great  principle 
embodied  fiy  Jefferson  in  the  Declaration  of  American  Independence,  that 
Governments  derive  their  just  powers  from  the  consen  t  of  the  governed,  is 
sound  and  just ;  and  that  if  the  Slave  States,  the  Cotton  States,  or  the  Gulf 
States  only,  choose  to  form  an  Independent  Nation,  THEY  HAVE  A  CLEAR 

MORAL   RIGHT   TO  DO   SO." 

These  quotations  from  the  Tribune  I  see  set  forth  by  ex- 
President  Buchanan  in  his  work  entitled  "  Buchanan's  Ad 
ministration,"  page  97.  I  take  it  for  granted  they  are  correct. 
Then  how,  in  the  face  of  all  these  proofs,  can  the  Tribune  now 
say,  that  "  Horace  Greeley  never ',  at  any  moment  of  his  life,  imag 
ined  that  a  single  State,  or  a  dozen  States,  could  rightfully  dis 
solve  the  Union" 

Is  not  this  a  full  and  explicit  acknowledgment  of  the  right 
of  a  State  to  withdraw  or  secede  f  Did  the  Southern  States  ever 
attempt  to  dissolve  the  Union  in  any  other  way  than  by  peace 
ably  seceding  or  witJidrawing  from  it  ?  Mr.  Greeley  knows,  and 
the  world  knows,  that  they  did  not. 

One  other  remark  upon  this  editorial  now  under  considera 
tion.  In  it  Mr.  Greeley  says  : 

"  According  to  Mr.  Stephens'  conception,  a  majority  of  the  people  of 
Delaware,  consisting  of  less  than  100,000  persons,  might  lawfully  dissolve 
the  Union,  but  the  whole  population  of  New  York,  south  of  the  High 
lands  —  at  least  1,500,000  in  number  —  could  do  nothing  of  the  kind.  Mr. 
Stephens'  may  possibly  be  the  true  doctrine,  but  it  certainly  never  was 
ours,  nor  of  any  Republican,  so  far  as  we  know.  The  right,  we  anirm,  is 
not  based  on  the  Federal  Constitution,  but  is  before  and  above  any  and 
all  Constitutions." 


MR.   STEPHENS'  EEPLY  TO  MR.   GREELEY.  143 

Just  so,  let  it  be  said  to  Mr.  Grceley,  with  the  doctrine 
advanced  by  me  in  the  book  referred  to  !  It  is  not  based  on 
the  Federal  Constitution,  but  upon  the  authority  that  made  that 
Compact.  It  is  based  upon  principles  existing  "before  and 
above  any  and  all  Constitutions."  It  is  based  upon  the  Para 
mount  Authority  (call  it  Popular  Sovereignty  or  State  Sover 
eignty,  or  by  any  other  name)  by  which  all  organized  States  or 
Peoples  can  rightfully  make  or  unmake  State  or  Federal  Consti 
tutions  at  their  pleasure  ;  subject  only  to  the  great  moral  law, 
which  regulates  and  governs  the  actions  and  conduct  of  nations ! 

My  conception,  however,  involves  no  such  nonsense  as  that 
exhibited  in  his  statement  of  it,  touching  the  relative  popula 
tions  of  the  whole  State  of  Delaware,  and  a  portion  only  (being 
a  large  minority,  however,)  of  the  population  of  the  State  of 
New  York.  Populations  in  this  respect  must  be  looked  to,  and 
considered  in  their  organized  character.  The  doctrine  advo 
cated  by  me  with  all  its  corollaries  rests  upon  the  fact  that  Dela 
ware,  however  small  her  population,  is  a  perfectly  organized 
State — is  a  Sovereign  State — and  as  such  is  an  integral  Mem 
ber  of  our  Federal  Republic,  and  that  New  York  with  her  ever 
so  many  more  people  is  no  more.  The  doctrine  is  that  ours  is 
indeed  a  Federal  Republic — constituted,  not  of  one  people  in 
mass,  as  a  single  Republic  is,  but  composed  of  a  number  of 
separate  Republics. 

In  this  Federal  Republic,  the  little  Republic  of  Delaware  by 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  which  sets  forth  the  terms 
of  the  Compact  between  these  several  Republics  composing  the 
Union,  has  just  as  much  political  power  in  the  enactment  of  all 
Federal  laws,  as  the  great  Republic  of  New  York  has,  without 
any  regard  to  their  relative,  respective  populations.  In  the 
Congress  of  States,  which  is  provided  for  by  the  Constitution  to 
take  charge  of  all  Federal  matters  entrusted  to  its  control,  Dela 
ware,  to-day,  with  her  little  over  one  hundred  thousand  popula 
tion,  stands  perfectly  equal  in  political  power  to  New  York  with 
her  nearly  forty  times  that  number  !  Congress  under  our  system 
means  the  same  now  it  ever  meant.  It  means  the  meeting  or 
assemblage  of  the  States  composing  the  Union  by  their  ac 
credited  Representatives  in  Grand  Council.  In  this  Grand 


144:  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

Council,  or  Congress  of  States,  Delaware  has  as  much  political 
power  as  New  York.  It  is  true  in  one  House  of  this  Congress, 
her  one  member  has  but  little  showing  against  the  thirty  odd 
members  of  New  York.  But  her  equality  of  power  is  maintained 
in  tho  other.  Here  this  perfect  equality  of  political  power 
between  all  the  States  is  as  distinctly  retained  under  the  second 
Articles  of  Union  as  it  was  under  the  first.  No  law  can  be 
passed  by  the  Congress,  if  a  majority  of  the  States,  through  their 
"  Ambassadors  "  in  the  Senate,  object. 

It  is  on  this  principle,  that  the  six  New  England  States  with 
a  fraction  over  three  millions  of  population,  under  the  census  of 
1860,  have  in  the  last  resort  in  the  Council  Chambers  of  the 
Congress,  six  times  as  much  power  in  determining  all  questions 
before  them,  as  the  State  of  New  York,  though  New  York 
alone  has  a  population  of  over  half  a  million  more  than  all  these 
other  States  together  !  It  is  upon  this  principle  that  these  six 
States  have  as  much  power  in  the  administration  of  the  Govern 
ment  as  the  six  States  of  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Yirginia, 
Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois  had  with  their  aggregate  population 
of  thirteen  and  a  half  millions  in  1860  ! 

These  are  facts  which  neither  Mr.  Greeley  nor  anybody  else 
can  successfully  controvert. 

Ours,  therefore,  being  a  Federal  Government,  is  and  must  be, 
as  all  other  Federal  Governments  are,  "  a  Government  of  States, 
and  for  States,"  with  limited  powers  directed  to  specific  objects ; 
and  not  a  Government  in  any  sense  or  view  for  the  masses  of 
the  people  of  the  respective  States  in  their  internal  and  muni 
cipal  affairs.  This  great  Sovereign  Power  of  Local  Self-Govern- 
ment,  for  which  Independence  was  declared  and  achieved, 
resides  with  the  people  of  the  respective  States. 

A  ready  and  sufficient  answer  to  Mr.  Greeley 's  distorted 
"conception"  about  the  political  power  of  the  comparative 
populations  of  Delaware  and  New  York,  may  be  given  to  him 
from  his  own  doctrines.  It  is  this  :  If  a  majority  of  the  people 
of  Delaware,  after  due  deliberation  and  full  consideration,  have 
the  same  right,  whether  by  virtue  of  State  Sovereignty  or  Popu 
lar  Sovereignty,  to  withdraw  from  the  Union  which  they  had  to 
declare  their  Independence  of  Great  Britain,  which  he  admits 


MR.   STEPHENS'  REPLY  TO  MR.   GREELEY.  145 

they  have,  it  does  not  therefore  follow  that  less  than  half  the 
population  of  the  State  of  New  York  can,  with  eqiial  right,  carry 
that  State  out,  against  the  will  of  the  majority,  though  the 
minority  in  New  York  wishing  to  do  so  l>QJive  hundred  orjive 
thousand  times  greater  in  number  than  the  majority  in  Dela 
ware  !  He  may,  therefore,  not  be  alarmed  at  any  of  the  legiti 
mate  consequences  of  his  own  doctrines ! 

"What  he  says  about  Secession  having  been  carried  in  the 
Southern  States  by  "  a  violent,  subversive,  bullying,  terrorizing, 
minority,  overawing  and  stifling  "  a  majority  of  the  people  of 
these  States,  is  nothing  but  bald  and  naked  assertion,  which 
cannot  be  maintained  against  the  facts  of  history.  The  question 
was  as  thoroughly  discussed  as  any  ever  was  before  the  people. 
Conventions  were  regularly  called  by  the  duly  constituted 
authorities  of  the  States,  and  members  duly  elected  thereto, 
according  to  law  in  all  the  States,  which  seceded  before  Mr. 
Lincoln's  Proclamation  of  "War.  These  elections  were  as  orderly 
as  elections  usually  are  in  any  of  the  States  on  great  occasions. 
In  these  Conventions,  Ordinances  of  Secession  were  passed  by 
decided  majorities  !  It  is  true  that  a  large  minority  in  all  these 
Conventions,  save  one,  and  in  all  these  States,  were  opposed  to 
Secession  as  a  question  of  policy ;  very  few  in  any  of  them 
questioned  the  Eight,  or  doubted  their  Duty  to  go  with  the 
majority.  But  after  Mr.  Lincoln's  Proclamation  of  AYar  —  after 
his  illegal  and  unconstitutional  call  for  troops  —  after  his  sus 
pension  of  the  "Writ  of  Habeas  Corpus,  no  people  on  earth  were 
ever  more  unanimous  in  any  cause  than  were  the  people  of  the 
Southern  States,  in  defence  of  what  they  deemed  the  great 
essential  principles  of  American  Free  Institutions  !  There  was 
not  one  in  ten  thousand  of  the  people,  in  at  least  ten  of  the 
Southern  States,  whose  heart  and  soul  were  not  thoroughly  en 
listed  in  the  cause !  Nor  did  any  people  on  earth  ever  make 
greater  or  more  heroic  sacrifices  for  its  success,  during  four  long 
years  of  devastation,  blood,  and  carnage  ! 

A  majority  of  the  people  overawed  and  terrorized  by  a 
minority  !  Indeed! 

If  so,  what  became  of  this  majority  when  the  Confederate 
Armies,  which  stood  between  them  and  their  deliverers,  were 
10 


146  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

overpowered?  "Where  is  this  majority  now,  even  with  the 
sweeping  disfranchisement  which  silences  so  many  of  the  over 
awing  tyrants  ?  "Why  has  it  not  been  permitted  to  exercise  the 
inalienable  Eight  of  Self-Government,  even  with  the  reinforce 
ment  of  the  enfranchised  blacks  ?  "Why  are  so  many  of  these 
States,  till  this  day,  held  under  military  rule,  with  their  whole 
populations  "  pinned  "  to  very  lad  Government  by  Federal  bay 
onets,  under  the  pretext  of  their  continued  "  disloyalty  f  "  This 
assertion,  as  to  the  state  of  things  in  the  beginning,  is  as  utterly 
groundless  in  fact,  as  it  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  gratui- 
*  tous  assumptions  on  which  the  present  pretext  is  based  ! 

Is  it  not  amazing,  Messrs.  Editors,  that  Mr.  Greeley  in  the 
face  of  the  facts  for  the  last  four  years,  to  say  nothing  of  those 
of  the  war,  when,  according  to  his  own  showing,  the  Adminis 
tration  at  "Washington  in  rushing  into  it,  were  in  "  the  wrong  " 
— I  say,  to  omit  all  mention  of  the  wrongs  of  the  war,  its 
immense  sacrifices  of  blood  and  treasure,  is  it  not  amazing  in 
the  highest  degree,  that  Mr.  Greeley,  in  the  face  of  the  facts  of 
the  last  four  years  only,  should  now  repeat  to  us  the  Principles 
of  American  Independence  as  his  creed  ?  Have  not  the  Consti 
tutions  of  ten  States,  as  made  and  adopted  by  the  people 
thereof,  "  founded  on  such  principles  and  organized  in  such  form 
as  seemed  to  them  most  likely  to  effect  their  safety  and  happi 
ness,"  been  swept  from  existence  by  military  edict  ?  Have  not 
the  people  in  these  ten  States,  including  the  arbitrarily  enfran 
chised  Hacks,  been  denied  the  right  to  form  new  Constitutions, 
laying  their  foundations  on  such  principles  and  organizing  its 
powers  in  such  form  as  to  them  shall  seem  most  likely  to  effect 
their  safety  and  happiness  ?  Have  they  not  been  required,  and 
literally  compelled,  to  form  such  Constitutions  as  seemed  most 
likely  to  effect  the  safety  and  security  of  the  dominant  faction 
at  "Washington  ? 

Is  this  holding  up  to  our  gaze  these  immutable  and  ever-to- 
be-reverenced  Principles  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  at 
this  time  and  under  the  present  circumstances,  intended  only  as 
mockery  added  to  insult,  injury,  and  outrage  ? 
Yours,  most  respectfully, 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 


AKTICLE  Y. 

THE  SUBJECT   OF  THE  ELECTION  OF  MR.   DAVIS   TO    THE 
PRESIDENCY  OF  THE  CONFEDERATE  STATES. 

I. — LETTER  OF  HON.  ALEXANDER  M.  CLAYTON,  OF  MISSISSIPPI, 
CRITICISING  MR.  STEPHENS'  STATEMENT  CONCERNING  IT. 

WOOD  COTE,  Miss.,  June  17,  1870. 

Editors  Appeal : — The  weekly  Louisville  Courier-Journal, 
of  the  17th  inst.,  contains  an  extract  from  the  second  volume 
of  Mr.  Stephens'  History  of  the  War,  which  calls  for  some  com 
ment.  The  passage  alluded  to  is  in  these  words :( 

"  Toombs  was  to  have  been  chosen  President,  but  failed  through  a 
singular  misapprehension  on  the  part  of  representatives  from  other  States, 
who  had  understood  that  he  had  refused  to  have  his  name  put  forward. 
There  was  some  misunderstanding,  likewise,  concerning  Howell  Cobb 
being  the  choice  of  Georgia.  By  accidental  complications,  Mississippi  had 
the  first  choice,  and  chose  Jefferson  Davis,  leaving  Georgia  the  second, 
which  resulted  in  the  Vice-Presidency  of  Mr.  Stephens." 

There  is  great  error  in  this  statement,  unintentional  no 
doubt,  and  induced  to  some  extent  by  the  modesty  of  Mr. 
Stephens,  which  makes  him  unwilling  to  give  that  prominence 
to  himself,  which  really  belongs  to  him. 

I  was  at  that  time  a  member  of  the  Provisional  Congress 
from  Mississippi.  Believing  that  Mr.  Davis  was  the  choice  of 
the  South  for  the  position  of  President,  before  repairing  to 
Montgomery,  I  addressed  him  a  letter  to  ascertain  if  he  would 
accept  it.  He  replied  that  it  was  not  the  place  he  desired ;  that 
if  he  could  have  his  choice,  he  would  greatly  prefer  to  be  in 
active  service  as  Commander-in-chief  of  the  Army ;  but  that  he 


148  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

would  give  himself  to  the  cause  in  any  capacity  whatever.  That 
was  the  only  letter  of  which  I  have  any  knowledge,  that  he 
wrote  on  the  subject,  and  that  was  shown  only  to  a  very  few 
persons,  and  only  when  I  was  asked  if  Mr.  Davis  would  accept 
the  Presidency. 

I  intend  no  injustice  or  disrespect  to  any  of  the  gentle 
men  named,  but  I  am  sure  Mr.  Stephens  was  himself  the  first 
choice  of  Georgia.  There  was  no  electioneering,  no  manage 
ment  on  the  part  of  any  one,  each  voter  was  left  to  determine 
for  himself  in  whose  hands  the  destinies  of  the  infant  Confed 
eracy  should  be  placed.  By  a  law  as  fixed  as  gravitation  itself, 
and  as  little  disturbed  by  outside  influences,  the  minds  of  mem 
bers  centered  upon  Mr.  Davis. 

After  a  few  days  of  anxious  and  intense  labor,  the  Provi 
sional  Constitution  was  framed  and  it  became  necessary  to  give 
it  vitality  by  putting  some  one  at  head  of  the  new  Government. 
Then  Mr.  Crawford,  of  Georgia,  approached  me  and  said  that 
it  had  been  the  wish  of  that  State  to  make  Mr.  Stephens  Presi 
dent  ;  but  he  (Crawford)  had  become  satisfied  that  it  was  the 
wish  of  all  the  other  States,  that  Mr.  Davis  should  be  assigned 
to  that  position.  He  then  asked  me  if  Mr.  Stephens  would  be 
acceptable  to  the  Mississippi  delegation  as  Yice-President.  I 
replied,  that  I  believed  he  would  be  their  choice.  "Without  any 
effort  on  the  part  of  the  friends  of  either,  the  election  was  made 
without  the  slightest  dissent.  Of  the  accidental  complications 
referred  to,  I  have  not  the  least  knowledge ;  and  always  thought 
that  the  election  of  Mr.  Davis  arose  from  the  spontaneous  con 
viction  of  his  peculiar  fitness.  I  have  consulted  no  one  on  the 
subject,  and  have  appended  my  name,  only  to  avoid  resting  an 
important  fact  upon  anonymous  authority. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

ALEX.  M.  CLAYTON. 


MR.   STEPHENS'   STATEMENT.  149 


II. — REPLY  OF  ME.  STEPHENS,  WITH  HIS  STATEMENT  UPON  THE 

SUBJECT. 

LIBERTY  HALL,  ) 

CRAWFORDVILLE,  GA.,  June  25,  1870.  } 

To  the  Editors  of  the  Memphis  Appeal : 

GENTLEMEN  :  —  I  have  just  seen  a  copy  of  your  paper  of  the 
21st,  in  which  is  published  a  letter  from  Hon.  Alexander  M. 
Clayton,  of  Mississippi,  that  is  very  properly  entitled  to  some 
notice  from  me. 

In  this  letter  Judge  Clayton  quotes  from  the  Louisville 
Courier  Journal  what  purports,  as  he  quotes  it,  to  be  an  "  ex 
tract  "  from  the  second  volume  of  my  work  upon  the  wTar  upon 
the  subject  of  the  election  of  Mr.  Davis  to  the  Presidency  of  the 
Southern  Confederacy,  and  after  giving  the  "  extract "  proceeds 
to  say :  "  There  is  great  error  in  this  statement,  unintentional 
no  doubt,"  etc. 

Now  I  have  not  seen  a  copy  of  the  issue  of  the  Courier- 
Journal  to  which  he  refers  ;  but  I  wish  to  say  to  you,  and  to 
your  readers,  as  I  have  written  to  Judge  Clayton,  that  there 
are  no  such  words  used  by  me  in  the  book  alluded  to,  as  those 
said  to  be  an  "  extract "  from  it.  All  who  wish  to  know  exactly 
what  I  said  upon  this  subject,  as  well  as  all  others  treated  of, 
had  better  consult  the  book  itself  than  rely  upon  any  other 
source  for  correct  information  in  regard  to  it. 

What  is  said  in  the  second  volume  of  my  work  upon  the  war 
upon  the  points  referred  to  by  Judge  Clayton,  I  herewith  ap 
pend,  that  you  may  give  it  entire  to  your  readers,  if  you  think 
it  of  sufficient  public  interest  to  do  so.  I  think  if  Judge  Clay 
ton  had  seen  this,  he  would  not  written  his  letter. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 

[EXTKACT  FROM  BOOK  APPENDED.] 

"  Major  HEISTEK —  'Pray  tell  us,  Mr.  Stephens,  if  you  have  no  objec 
tion,  how  this  came  about — how  Mr.  Davis  came  to  be  chosen  President, 
and  you  Vice-President,  under  these  circumstances.' 


150  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

"  Mr.  STEPHENS  —  'I  have  no  objection  to  giving  you  my  opinion  on 
this  subject,  as  to  how  Mr.  Davis  came  to  be  chosen  under  the  circum 
stances.  It  is,  however,  only  an  opinion.  I  was  somewhat  surprised  my 
self  at  both  results  as  they  occurred ;  but  as  I  took  only  a  very  small  part 
in  the  elections  any  way,  I  can  speak  of  my  own  knowledge  as  to  but  few 
facts  connected  with  either.  The  conclusion  that  I  came  to  from  all  facts 
I  learned  from  others,  before  and  afterwards,  was  that  the  selection  of  Mr. 
Davis  grew  out  of  a  misapprehension  on  the  part  of  some  of  the  delegates 
of  one,  or,  perhaps  two  or  three  of  the  States,  in  their  consultations  of  the 
night  before,  as  to  the  man  that  the  Georgia  delegation  had  determined 
to  present.  A  majority  of  the  States,  as  I  understood,  and  afterwards 
learned,  were  looking  to  Georgia  for  the  President.' 

"Major  HEISTEB  —  'Who  was  the  man  Georgia  had  determined  to 
present  ? ' 

"  Mr.  STEPHENS  — '  Georgia,  at  the  time,  had  not  acted  in  the  matter. 
Her  delegation  did  not  hold  their  consultation  until  next  morning.  Mr. 
Toombs  was  the  man  whom  they  then  unanimously  agreed  to  .present ;  at 
least  there  was  perfect  unanimity  on  the  subject  with  all  the  delegates  in 
attendance.  Two,  Mr.  Hill  and  Mr.  Wright,  were  absent.  I  now  speak  of 
my  own  knowledge.  I  was  at  this  meeting  of  the  Georgia  delegation,  and 
therein  was  acted  the  only  part  I  took  in  the  matter.  That  was  by  making 
the  motion  for  Mr.  Toombs'  nomination  to  the  Convention,  supposing  that 
it  would  be  unanimously  acceptable  to  that  body ;  but  in  this  meeting  it 
was  stated,  after  my  motion  was  made,  that  two  or  three  of  the  States,  in 
their  consultations,  which  had  been  held  the  night  before,  had  determined 
to  present  the  name  of  Mr.  Davis.  The  fact  only,  without  any  reason  for 
it,  was  stated,  also,  only  as  something  which  had  been  heard,  but  not 
positively  known.  On  this  announcement,  a  committee  of  our  delegation, 
of  which  Mr.  Crawford  was  chairman,  or  perhaps  he  alone,  (I  am  not  cer 
tain  whether  any,  or  how  many  more  were  united  with  him,)  was  appointed 
to  ascertain  if  what  had  been  heard  in  relation  to  the  action  of  the  other 
States  referred  to  was  true ;  and  if  it  was,  it  was  understood,  at  the  instance 
of  Mr.  Toombs,  that  his  name  was  not  to  be  presented  by  Georgia,  and 
that  our  delegation  would  vote  for  Mr.  Davis,  and  have  no  contest  on  the 
subject. 

"  *  In  this  meeting  of  our  delegation,  after  the  announcement  alluded  to 
had  been  made,  and  the  course  in  reference  to  it  had  been  resolved  upon, 
Mr.  Kenan  moved,  that  in  case  what  had  been  stated  as  rumor  should  be 
found  true,  and  the  name  of  Mr.  Toombs  should  not  be  presented  for  the 
first  office,  then  mine  should  be  for  the  second.  This  motion  was  cordially 
seconded  by  Mr.  Nisbet.  and  was  unanimously  agreed  to,  after  a  distinct 
understanding  arrived  at,  by  what  I  said  in  reference  to  it ;  which  was, 
that  in  no  event  was  my  name  to  be  presented,  unless  it  was  first  ascer 
tained  positively,  that  Mr.  Davis'  name  was  to  go  before  the  Convention, 


ME.   CRAWFORD'S  STATEMENT.  151 

and  not  that  of  Mr.  Toombs ;  and  further,  that  rny  name  would  be  unani 
mously  acceptable  to  the  States  and  their  respective  delegations.  These 
points  the  committee  of  our  delegation  was  instructed  speedily  to  inquire 
into  and  report.' " 


III. — LETTER  OF  HON.  MARTIN  J.  CRAWFORD  UPON  THE  SAME 

SUBJECT. 

[FROM  THE  SUN  AND  TIMES.] 

COLUMBUS,  GA.,  Junq  25,  1870. 

Messrs.  Editors :  —  I  see  a  communication  this  morning  in 
your  paper  from  Hon.  A.  M.  Clayton,  of  Mississippi,  in  refer 
ence  to  the  election  of  the  President  of  the  Confederate  States, 
in  which  the  following  paragraph  occurs : 

"  After  a  few  days  of  anxious  and  Intense  labor,  the  Provisional  Con 
stitution  was  framed,  and  it  became  necessary  to  give  it  vitality  by  putting 
some  one  at  the  head  of  the  Government.  Then  Mr.  Crawford,  of  Georgia, 
approached  me  and  said  that  it  had  been  the  wish  of  that  State  to  make 
Mr.  Stephens  President ;  but  he  (Crawford)  had  become  satisfied  that  it 
was  the  wish  of  all  the  other  States  that  Mr.  Davis  should  be  assigned  to 
that  position.  He  then  asked  me  if  Mr.  Stephens  would  be  acceptable  to 
the  Mississippi  delegation  as  Vice-President.  I  replied,  that  I  believed  he 
would  be  their  choice.  Without  any  effort  on  the  part  of  the  friends  of 
either  the  election  was  made  without  the  slightest  dissent.  Of  the  acci 
dental  complications  referred  to,  I  have  not  the  least  knowledge  ;  and  al 
ways  thought  the  election  of  Mr.  Davis  arose  from  spontaneous  conviction 
of  his  peculiar  fitness.  I  have  consulted  no  one  on  the  subject,  and  have 
appended  my  name,  only  to  avoid  resting  an  important  fact  upon  anony 
mous  authority." 

The  mistake  into  which  Mr.  Clayton  falls  is  that  I  should 
have  said  to  him  that  Georgia  had  desired  Mr.  Stephens  as 
President.  On  the  contrary,  Georgia  desired  Mr.  Toombs ;  and 
the  delegation  in  conference  upon  the  subject  on  the  morning 
of  the  election  had  so  declared ;  and  if,  upon  inquiry,  South 
Carolina  and  Florida  had  not  determined  to  cast  their  votes  for 
Mr.  Davis,  then  Mr.  Toombs'  name  was  to  be  brought  forwaxd. 
To  ascertain  how  this  matter  stood  was  made  my  duty  by  the 
delegation,  and  with  positive  instructions  from  Mr.  Toombs 


152  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

that  his  name  was  not  to  be  presented  if  those  States  had  de 
clared  for  Mr.  Davis  in  their  separate  meetings.  This  they  had 
done,  and  that  made  it  necessary  to  act  upon  the  subject-matter 
of  the  Yice-Presidency  as  agreed  upon  in  our  meeting  of  the 
Georgia  Delegates ;  which  was,  that  in  the  event  Mr.  Toombs' 
name  was  not  presented  for  the  first  place,  Mr.  Stephens'  should 
be  for  the  second ;  and  I  had  been  also  requested  to  see  whether 
that  would  be  acceptable  to  the  other  States,  hence  my  inter 
view  with  Mr.  Clayton.  I  intended  to  say  to  him,  and  had 
always  supposed  that  he  so  understood  me,  that  our  State  in 
tended  to  present  a  name  for  the  Presidency ;  but  the  action 
already  taken  by  some  of  the  States  would  prevent  that,  and  I 
had  called  to  see  him  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether 
or  not  Mr.  Stephens  would  bo  an  acceptable  man  to  his  dele 
gation  for  Vice-President . 

Mr.  Stephens  never  entertained  an  idea  of  the  Presidency ; 
and,  indeed,  thought  that  it  would  not  be  proper  for  him  to 
have  it.  This  I  know,  because  while  the  subject  was  being 
considered,  some  members  of  the  Congress  mentioned  the  matter 
to  him,  and  he  very  promptly  said  that  his  name  could  not  be 
used  in  that  way.  After  these  gentlemen  left  our  lodgings  he 
said  to  me,  in  his  usual  frank  manner,  that  he  had  not  been  a 
leader  in  the  movement  which  was  about  to  result  in  the  estab 
lishment  of  a  new  Government,  and  that  "  to  make  him  Presi- 
.dent  would  be  like  taking  a  child  out  of  the  hands  of  its  mother 
and  giving  it  to  a  stepmother  to  raise."  "  But,"  continued  he? 
"  some  one  who  has  been  identified  with  the  cause  should  be 
chosen,  and  whosoever  he  may  be,  he  shall  have  the  benefit  of 
whatsoever  experience  and  ability  I  can  bring  to  his  support. 
We  are  entering  upon  new  and  untried  fields,  and  I  greatly 
fear  that  our  people  are  not  prepared  for  the  great  responsi 
bilities  which  are  ahead  of  them.  But  Georgia,  whose  sover 
eign  will  I  am  bound  to  obey,  has  taken  her  course,  and  that 
assigns  me  to  my  position,  and  in  that,  I  will  discharge  to  her 
my  duty  honestly  and  faithfully ;  and  if  at  last  we  shall  lose  all, 
I  do  not  care  to  survive  the  liberties  of  my  country." 

I  give  in  substance,  if  not  in  words,  the  language  of  this 
great  and  good  man  in  the  hours  of  our  repose  from  the  great 


MR.   CRAWFORD'S  STATEMENT.  153 

duties  then  devolving  upon  us,  and  which  neither  he  nor  I  ever 
expected  to  be  brought  before  the  public  eye. 

A  dark  day,  about  the  20th  of  February,  1862,  came  over 
us,  and  there  was  an  interview  and  a  solemn  parting  between 
Mr.  Stephens  and  myself  which  I  have  never  put  upon  paper ; 
but  which  I  do  not  intend  to  leave  unknown  to  the  world, 
which  shows  that  he  is  as  patriotic  and  true  to  his  country  as 
were  the  bravest  and  best  of  the  Spartans  to  theirs : 

Touching  the  Presidency  of  the  Confederate  States,  I  have 
this  to  say :  That  for  more  than  ten  years,  I  had  looked  for  the 
separation  of  the  States,  and  the  disconnection  of  the  Southern 
from  the  Northern  States  of  the  American  Union.  I  had  acted 
for  seven  sessions  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  with  the 
extreme  wing  of  the  States'  Eights  men,  and  am  free  to  say 
that  at  Washington,  during  that  time,  Mr.  Davis  was  looked 
upon  as  the  representative  man,  or  at  least  as  the  man  more 
identified  with  our  view  of  States'  Rights  and  Southern  Rights 
than  any  other,  and  therefore  was  looked  to  as  the  man  who 
should  be  chosen  the  first  President  of  the  Confederate  States, 
or  our  new  Government,  under  whatever  name  it  might  be 
organized.  But  the  Provisional  Congress  was  composed,  to  a 
large  extent,  of  gentlemen  who  were  not  in  the  old  Congress ; 
yet  many  of  whom  were  men  of  experience,  education,  public 
service  and  substance.  Our  first  duty  was  to  frame  a  constitu 
tion.  Mr.  Toombs,  who  had  been  for  nearly  twenty  years  in  the 
American  Congress,  and  for  ten  of  them  in  the  Senate  —  in 
the  prime  of  his  manhood  and  in  the  fulness  of  his  intellectual 
vigor  —  was  a  member  of  the  body.  He  had  never  looked  to 
the  Presidency  of  the  new  Republic,  either  at  Washington  or 
Montgomery,  but  in  framing  of  the  Constitution  and  the  organi 
zation  of  the  Confederate  Government,  he  showed  himself  to 
be  one  so  wonderfully  endowed  with  the  very  knowledge  at 
that  time  mostly  needed,  that  a  manifestation  in  his  favor  was 
made  by  the  delegates  from  several  States  to  pat  him  at  the 
head  of  the  government.  He,  by  persons  unacquainted  with 
him,  is  looked  upon  and  considered  as  rash  and  impetuous.  In 
conversation  this  is  so,  but  when  anything  is  to  le  done,  it  is 
not  so.  Notwithstanding  all  he  may  say  in  the  highway,  he  is 


154:  THE  EEVIEWERS  EEVIEWED. 

the  wisest  and  safest  man  in  counsel  whom  it  has  been  my 
fortune  to  meet. 

It  was  this  wisdom,  knowledge  and  discretion  which  directed 
attention  to  him  at  that  time  for  the  Presidency,  and  with  the 
vote  of  South  Carolina  or  Florida,  as  I  understood,  he  would 
have  been  unanimously  chosen  as  President ;  for  it  was  wrell 
agreed  and  understood  that  there  should  be  but  one  name  pre 
sented  for  each  place,  and  whosoever  should  command  four 
States  out  of  the  six  would  receive  the  wThole.  I  think  that  Mr. 
Davis  was  elected  because  he  had  been  long  identified  with  the 
theories  which  were  then  triumphant ;  because  of  his  supposed 
influence  with  the  officers  of  the  old  army,  as  well  as  the  fact 
than  Messrs.  Toombs,  Cobb  and  Stephens  were  all  from  the 
same  State,  and  the  political  waters  were  too  shallow  for  them 
to  turn  in  without  injury  to  each  other. 
Very  respectfully, 

MARTIN  J.  CRAWFORD. 


AETICLE  YL 

CONFEDERATE  INACTIVITY  AFTER  TEE  FIRST  BATTLE  OF  MA- 
N ASS  AS,  1861.— CRITICISM  OF  HON.  E.  BARKSDALE  OF  MISSISSIPPI 
ON  THIS  POINT. 

I. — EDITORIAL  OF  THE  AUGUSTA  (GA:)  "  CONSTITUTIONALIST,"  31sT 
JULY,  1870,  BY  J.  R.  RANDALL  :  WITH  LETTERS  FROM  PRESI 
DENT  DAVIS  AND  GENERAL  JOSEPH  E.  JOHNSTON. 

The  Truth  of  History. — Mr.  Stephens  and  Mr.  Barksdale, 

SEVERAL  weeks  ago,  Hon.  E.  Barksdale,  editor  of  the  Jackson 
(Miss.)  Clarion,  joined  issue  with  Hon.  Alexander  H.  Stephens 
in  his  statement  in  the  second  volume  of  the  "  War  Between 
the  States"  on  the  much  mooted  question  of  the  inactivity  of 
the  Confederate  army  at  Manassas  during  the  whole  Fall  of 
1861,  after  the  great  victory  of  the  21st  of  July.  This  article 
(which  it  now  seems  was  not  founded  upon  a  perusal  of  the 
exact  language  of  Mr.  Stephens  upon  the  subject,  but  upon  a 
"  sketch  "  which  we  gave  of  the  substance,  as  we  understood  it, 
of  several  parts  of  the  book)  maintained  that  Mr.  Stephens  had 
committed  "  a  grave  error,  scarcely  excusable  in  one  occupying 
his  position  and  who  has  undertaken  to  write  for  posterity." 
To  show  this  error,  Mr.  Barksdale  published,  for  the  first  time, 
a  correspondence  between  President  Davis  and  General  Joseph 
E.  Johnston  upon  the  subject.  That  correspondence,  as  a  part 
of  the  history  of  the  times,  we  give  to  our  readers.  It  is  as 
follows : 

RICHMOND,  VA.,  November  3,  1861. 
General  J.  E.  Johnston,  Commanding  Department  of  the  Potomac : 

SIR  :  Reports  have  been  and  are  being  widely  circulated,  to  the  effect 
that  I  prevented  General  Beauregard  from  pursuing  the  enemy  after  the 
battle  of  Manassas,  and  had  subsequently  restrained  him  from  advancing 
upon  Washington  City.  Though  such  statements  may  have  been  made 
merely  for  my  injury,  and  in  that  view  their  notice  might  be  postponed  to 


156  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

a  more  convenient  season,  they  have  acquired  importance  from  the  fact 
that  they  have  served  to  create  distrust,  to  excite  disappointment,  and 
must  embarrass  the  administration  in  its  further  efforts  to  reinforce  the 
armies  of  the  Potomac,  and  generally  to  provide  for  the  public  defence. 

For  these  public  considerations,  I  call  upon  you,  as  the  Commanding- 
General,  and  as  a  party  to  all  the  conferences  held  by  me  on  the  21st  and 
22d  of  July,  to  say  whether  I  obstructed  the  pursuit  of  the  enemy  after 
the  victory  at  Manassas,  or  have  ever  objected  to  an  advance  or  other  active 
operation  which  it  was  feasible  for  the  army  to  undertake  ? 
Very  respectfully,  yours,  etc., 

JEFFERSON  DAVIS. 

HEADQUARTERS,  CENTREVILLE,  November  10,  1861. 
To  His  Excellency  the  President  : 

SIR :  I  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  your  letter  of  the  3d  inst.,  in 
which  you  call  upon  me,  "  as  the  Commanding-General,  and  as  a  party  to 
all  the  conferences  held  by  you  on  the  21st  and  22d  of  July,  to  say : 

"  Whether  you  obstructed  the  pursuit  after  the  victory  of  Manassas. 

"  Or  have  ever  objected  to  an  advance  or  other  active  operations  which 
it  was  feasible  for  the  army  to  undertake." 

To  the  first  question  I  reply  No.  The  pursuit  was  "  obstructed  "  by  the 
enemy's  troops  at  Centreville,  as  I  have  stated  in  my  official  report.  In 
that  report  I  have  also  said  why  no  advance  was  made  upon  the  enemy's 
capital  for  reasons  as  follows  : 

The  apparent  freshness  of  the  United  States  troops  at  Centreville, 
which  checked  our  pursuit ;  the  strong  force  occupying  the  works  near 
Georgetown,  Arlington,  and  Alexandria ;  the  certainty,  too,  that  General 
Patterson,  if  needed,  would  reach  Washington  with  his  army  of  more  than 
30,000  sooner  than  we  could ;  and  the  condition  and  inadequate  means  of 
the  army  in  ammunition,  provisions,  and  transportation,  prevented  any 
serious  thoughts  of  advancing  against  the  capital. 

To  the  second  question  I  reply  that  it  has  never  leen  feasible  for  the 
army  to  advance  further  than  it  has  done — to  the  line  of  Fairfax  C.  H., 
with  its  advanced  post  at  Upton's,  Munson's  and  Mason's  Hill.  After  a 
conference  at  Fairfax  C.  H.,  with  the  three  senior  general  officers,  you  an 
nounced  it  to  be  impracticable  to  give  this  army  the  strength  which  those 
officers  considered  necessary  to  enable  it  to  assume  the  offensive.  Upon 
which  I  drew  it  back  to  its  present  position. 

Most  respectfully,  your  ob't  serv't 

J.  E.  JOHNSTON. 
A  true  copy  : 

G.  W.  C.  LEE,  Colonel  and  A.  D.  C. 
To  the  President. 


ME.  STEPHENS'  LETTEK  TO  ME.  BAEKSDALE.         157 

We  took  no  notice  of  this  at  the  time,  because  we  saw  no 
new  light  thrown  upon  the  subject  by  this  correspondence, 
though  it  was  never  before  published. 

In  the  Memphis  Appeal,  of  the  25th  instant,  we  see  a  letter 
from  Mr.  Stephens  to  Mr.  Barksdale  on  the  subject  of  his  edi 
torial  in  the  Clarion,  and  Mr.  Barksdale's  reply,  as  well  as 
another  exceedingly  interesting  paper,  which,  as  far  as  we  are 
aware,  has  never  before  been  made  public.  This  paper  and  the 
correspondence  between  Mr.  Stephens  and  Mr.  Barksdale  we 
give  as  we  find  them  in  the  Appeal  —  feeling  assured  that  they 
will  be  perused  with  no  ordinary  interest. 


II.  LETTERS  REFERRED  TO  BY  MR.  RANDALL  : 

LIBERTY  HALL,  ) 

CRAWFORDVILLE,  GA.,  July  6,  1870.  ) 

Hon.  E.  BARKSDALE  : 

DEAR  SIR  : — In  the  Clarion  I  see  an  editorial  headed  "  The 
Battle  of  Manassas,  &c.,"  which  requires  a  notice  from  me. 

You  will  pardon  me,  I  trust,  for  saying  that  I  feel  quite  sure 
if  you  had  seen  what  is  stated  in  the  2d  volume  of  my  book  upon 
the  war,  now  being  issued  from  the  press,  you  would  not  have 
expressed  yourself  as  you  did  in  this  article ;  and  that  you  may 
know  exactly  what  my  statement  in  the  book  is,  upon  the  sub 
ject  of  the  advance  of  the  Confederate  army,  after  the  battle  of 
Manassas,  I  send  you  an  accurate  extract  from  it  (pages  488- 
489,)  as  follows : 

"  Major  HEISTER — '  One  thing,  Mr.  Stephens,  I  should  like  to  know  just 
at  this  point ;  and  that  is,  why  Gens.  Johnston  and  Beauregard  remained 
entirely  inactive  at  Manassas  during  the  whole  Fall  after  the  rout  of  Gen. 
McDowell's  army  on  the  21st  July  ?  Why  did  they  not  push  on  to 
"Washington  ?  They  must  have  had  a  very  large  force  early  in  the  Fall, 
and  flushed  with  victory  as  they  were,  it  has  always  been  a  mystery  to  me 
why  they  stood  so  perfectly  quiet  until  McClellan's  new  army  was  organ 
ized  almost  within  their  sight  ?  Can  you  explain  this  ? ' 

"  Mr.  STEPHENS —  '  I  do  not  know  that  I  can.  With  the  military  oper 
ations,  as  I  have  said  before,  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  deal,  except  in  so  far 
as  they  bear  upon  the  questions  which  we  have  directly  in  hand.  A  great 


158  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

deal  has  been  said  and  written  upon  the  subject  of  your  enquiry.  It  has 
been  said  that  Thomas  J.  Jackson,  who  afterwards\  became  so  famous 
under  the  appellation  of  *  Stonewall,'  and  who  was  the  Colonel  of  that 
name  so  favorably  mentioned  in  General  Johnston's  report  of  the  battle  of 
the  21st  of  July,  was  urgent  for  an  immediate  pressing  forward  to  Wash 
ington.  Some  think  his  views  were  right.  My  own  opinion,  from  the 
reports  of  both  General  Johnston  and  General  Beauregard,  as  well  as  from 
other  sources,  is,  that  such  a  movement  at  that  time,  was  altogether 
impracticable.  As  to  the  state  of  things  afterwards,  that  is  a  different 
question.  All  I  know  upon  that  point  is,  that  General  Johnston  did  wish 
to  make  some  movement  of  the  sort  in  the  early  part  of  the  Fall,  when  he 
was  better  prepared.  Not,  however,  with  the  forces  he  then  had,  for  they 
did  not  exceed  forty  thousand  effective  men,  while  McClellan  had  over 
fifty  thousand  when  he  took  conimand  at  Washington  on  the  27th  of  July. 
Johnston's  plan  was  to  concentrate,  as  quickly  as  possible,  at  that  place, 
a  force  sufficient  for  this  purpose,  which  could  be  done  only  by  leaving 
bare  remote  points,  then  defended.  For  this  object  a  council  of  war  was 
held  at  Manassas.  Mr.  Davis  went  up  from  Richmond.  He  met  Generals 
Johnston,  Beauregard,  and  Gustavus  W.  Smith  in  this  council.  General 
Beauregard  had  been  promoted  to  the  rank  of  full  General,  for  his  gallantry, 
and  great  services  on  the  21st  of  July.  General  Smith,  at  the  time,  com 
manded  a  division  of  this  army,  with  the  rank  of  Major-General.  He  was 
a  graduate  of  West  Point,  and  recognized  as  an  officer  of  great  merit. 

" '  The  result  of  the  council  of  war  so  held  was  the  disapproval,  by  Mr. 
Davis,  of  the  policy  suggested.  Upon  the  merits  of  the  views  presented 
for  or  against  its  adoption,  I  have  no  speculative  opinions  to  express.  Of 
course  all  that  could  now  be  said  on  the  subject  would  amount  to  nothing 
but  speculations.  General  Beauregard  was,  not  very  long  afterwards, 
transferred  to  a  command  in  the  West.  This  is  all  the  explanation  I  can 
give  of  the  matter  you  inquire  about.'  " 

The  foregoing  extract  (which  contains  all  that  is  said  in  the 
book  on  the  subject  of  your  special  comments  in  the  article  re 
ferred  to)  I  have  had  made,  and  verified  from  the  work  itself, 
and  send  it  to  you,  with  a  request  that  you  will  present  it,  with 
this  letter,  to  your  readers.  I  deeply  regret  that  I  have  not  a 
spare  copy  of  the  volume  to  send  you,  that  you  may  have  the 
entire  work  before  you  in  making  any  future  comments  upon 
this  or  any  other  part  of  it.  .  In  combatting  any  statement  or 
position  of  mine,  when  truth  is  the  object,  it  is  essential  to  refer 
to  the  text  itself,  and  not  to  the  commentaries  of  others  upon  it. 

In  this  instance  I  think  you  will  readily  admit,  there  is  no 
error  in  the  statement  as  it  stands  in  the  book.  There  is  cer- 


ME.  BARKSDALE'S  REPLY.  159 

tainly  not  the  slightest  inconsistency,  or  discrepancy  between  it 
and  any  fact  brought  to  light  by  the  correspondence  you  pub 
lished,  for  the  first  time,  between  President  Davis  and  General 
Joseph  E.  Johnston.  The  facts  in  this  instance,  as  in  all  others, 
as  I  understand  them,  are  exactly  as  I  have  stated  them ;  and 
so  I  think  you  will  find  them  to  be  upon  close  examination 
and  full  investigation. 

Of  one  thing  you  may  rest  assured,  the  great  object  with  me 
throughout  the  work  was  the  vindication  of  the  truth  of  his 
tory  ;  and  if  it  be  shown  that  I  have  fallen  into  error  upon  any 
point,  however  small  or  minor,  it  will  be  most  cheerfully  cor 
rected  in  all  subsequent  editions. 

Yours,  most  respectfully, 

ALEXANDER  II.  STEPHENS. 


[REPLY.] 

JACKSON,  July  16,  1870. 

Hon.  A.  II.  STEPHENS: 

DEAR  SIR  : — I  have  cheerfully  complied  with  your  request, 
to  publish  your  letter,  and  also  the  extract  enclosed,  from  your 
forthcoming  (2d)  volume. 

Finding  in  a  newspaper  published  in  your  State  what  pur 
ported  to  be  a  sketch  authorized  by  you,  of  your  work,  on  the 
subject  alluded  to,  I  reasonably  inferred  that  you  had  been  cor 
rectly  reported.  And  as  the  newspapers  and  the  public  gener 
ally  were  receiving,  as  an  unchallenged  truth,  the  statement 
thus  apparently  endorsed,  that  President  Davis  prevented  the 
General  in  command  of  the  Confederate  forces  from  pursuing 
the  enemy  from  the  field  of  Manassas  to  "Washington  City,  I 
deemed  the  occasion  proper  to  produce  the  unpublished  corre 
spondence  between  President  Davis  and  General  J.  E.  Johns 
ton,  forever  putting  the  statement  at  rest.  A  similar  charge 
had^been  made  in  the  Confederate  Congress  (in  secret  session), 
and  the  correspondence  was  then  employed  to  disprove  it. 

You  will  thus  see  that  the  responsibility  of  creating  an  ap 
parent  issue,  in  order  to  "  vindicate  the  truth  of  history,"  did 
not  rest  with  me.  I  have  no  taste  for  controversy  on  the  sub 
ject,  and  acted  solely  from  a  sense  of  duty  to  correct,  with  the 


160  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

means  in  my  possession,  an  injustice  (whi^ch  I  did  not  suppose 
to  be  intentional)  to  Mr.  Davis,  who,  during  the  war,  was  silent 
under  misrepresentation  and  unmerited  reproach ;  and  who,  by 
the  approbation  of  his  friends,  has  maintained  a  strict  silence 
since  its  close ;  but  whose  fame,  nevertheless,  is  the  property  of 
his  countrymen,  and  is  especially  dear  to  the  people  of  his  own 
State. 

It  is  evident  from  the  extract  which  you  have  enclosed,  that 
you  were  misreported  by  the  Augusta  Constitutionalist,  but  I 
regret  to  find  that  the  issue  is  changed,  from  the  statement  that 
President  Davis  prevented  the  Confederate  troops  from  follow 
ing  the  enemy  directly  into  Washington  City  from  the  battle 
field,  to  a  statement  that  three  months  thereafter,  the  fruits  of 
the  victory,  which  had  then  passed  into  history,  were  not  reaped 
by  the  Generals  in  consequence  of  his  disapproval. 

Candor  compels  me  respectfully  to  dissent  from  your  opin 
ion  that  there  is  "  no  error,  in  the  statement  as  it  stands  in  the 
book,  nor  discrepancy  between  it  and  the  facts  brought  to  light 
by  the  correspondence."  Your  language  conveys  a  meaning 
widely  variant  from  the  statement  of  General  Johnston.  The 
extract  produces  the  impression  that  the  President  disapproved 
the  policy  of  activity  and  an  advance  movement,  when  in  truth 
he  favored  such  plan ;  and  it  was  not  carried  out  because  of  his 
inability  to  furnish  the  troops  declared  to  be  essential  by  the 
Generals  entrusted  with  command.  In  reply  to  his  inquiry, 
whether  he  had  prevented  the  troops  from  following  up  the 
rout  at  Manassas,  General  Johnston  answered,  "JV<?."  And 
in  reply  to  his  inquiry  whether  "  he  had  ever  objected  to  an 
advance,  or  other  active  operations  which  it  was  feasible  for  the 
army  to  undertake,"  General  Johnston  replied:  " It  has  never 
been  feasible  for  the  Army  to  advance  further  than  it  has  done. 
After  a  conference  at  Fairfax  C.  II.,  with  the  three  senior  Gen 
erals,  you  announced  it  to  be  impracticable  to  give  the  army 
the  strength  necessary  to  assume  the  offensive."  This  letter 
was  dated  the  21st  of  November  of  the  Fall  in  the  "  early  part " 
of  which  you  report  that  President  Davis  overruled  their  pur 
pose  to  advance  on  "Washington.  It  does  not  authorize  the 
statement,  or  warrant  the  inference,  that  they  even  advised  an 


MR.  BAKKSDALE'S  EEPLY.  161 

advance  movement ;  much  less  does  it  show  that  the  President 
objected  to  the  assuming  of  offensive  operations.  It  only  ap 
pears  that  he  was  unable  to  furnish  the  troops  thought  by  the 
senior  Generals  to  be  necessary  for  a  movement,  if  made  against 
their  main  force ;  because  he  was  well  aware  that  to  have  left 
bare  Yorktown  and  Norfolk,  (which  were  not  "  remote  points," 
whether  their  proximity  to  the  scene  of  active  operations  or 
their  relations  to  the  vital  parts  of  the  Confederacy  be  consid 
ered),  would  have  opened  the  way  for  the  ascent  of  the  enemy 
up  James  Eiver  to  take  the  Capital,  and  cut  off  the  army  of  the 
Potomac  from  all  supplies,  by  the  destruction  of  railroads. 
This  could  have  been  done  by  a  small  force ;  and  still  small 
forces  would  have  achieved  a  like  destructive  work  at  Charles 
ton  and  other  important  points. 

And  while  this  discrepancy  is  shown  to  exist  between  the 
extract  from  your  work  and  the  facts  revealed  by  the  correspon 
dence,  you  will  allow  me  further  to  say,  that  the  statement  is 
faulty,  not  only  in  its  erroneous  representation  of  the  plan  of 
campaign  of  at  least  one  of  the  parties  whose  names  are  intro 
duced,  but  in  its  failure  to  mention  that  while  he  (President 
Davis)  did  not  have  the  troops  that  were  required  for  a  direct 
attack  on  Washington,  three  months  after  the  panic  of  McDow 
ell's  army  had  died  out,  and  when  the  enemy,  warned  by -the 
terrible  lesson  at  Manassas,  had  prepared  themselves  to  resist 
such  a  movement,  he  did  advise  an  advance  into  lower  Mary 
land  for  the  protection  of  the  people  of  that  section  from  the 
outrages  to  which  they  were  subjected  by  troops  under  the 
command  of  General  Sickles.  The  expedition  was  deemed 
feasible  by  the  Generals ;  but  was  never  undertaken  for  reasons 
of  which  the  public  are  not  advised,  but  which  may  have  been 
entirely  sufficient.  It  is  not  my  province  to  pronounce  an 
opinion.  Certainly  nothing  could  have  more  surprised  Presi 
dent  Davis,  and  the  persons  who  were  acquainted  with  the 
views  which  he  had  communicated  to  the  officers  in  command, 
than  the  attempt  to  hold  him  responsible  either  for  the  failure 
to  pursue  the  enemy  at  Manassas,  or  the  inactivity  which  con 
tinued  until  the  retreat  of  the  army  to  the  defences  at  Rich 
mond.  And  it  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  the  allegation  of  dis- 
11 


THE  EE  VIEWERS  KE  VIE  WED. 

approving  active  operations  was  never  made  against  President 
Davis,  after  General  Lee  (with  whose  plans  he  entirely  con 
curred)  took  command. 

I  am,  very  respectfully,  yours, 

E.  BARKSDALE. 


III. — THE  INTERESTING  PAPER  REFERRED  TO  BY  MR.  HANDALL. 

Memorandum  of  Council  of  War  signed  by  Generals  G.  W.  Smith. 
G.  T.  Beaurcgard,  and  J.  E.  Johnston. 

[A  COPY.] 

On  the  26th  of  September,  1861,  General  Joseph  E.  Johns 
ton  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  War  in  regard  to  the 
importance  of  putting  this  army  in  condition  to  assume  the 
offensive,  and  suggested  that  his  Excellency  the  President, ,  or 
the  Secretary  of  War,  or  some  one  representing  them,  should, 
at  an  early  day,  come  to  the  headquarters  of  the  army  at  or 
near  Fairfax  Court  House,  for  the  purpose  of  deciding  whether 
the  army  could  be  reinforced  to  the  extent  that  the  command 
ing  General  deemed  necessary  for  an  offensive  campaign. 

His  Excellency  the  President  arrived  at  Fairfax  Court 
House  a  few  days  thereafter,  late  in  the  afternoon,  and  pro 
ceeded  to  the  quarters  of  General  Beauregard.  On  the  same 
evening  General  Johnston  and  I  called  to  pay  our  respects.  No 
official  subjects  of  importance  were  alluded  to  in  that  interview. 
At  eight  o'clock  the  next  evening,  by  appointment  of  the  Presi 
dent,  a  conference  was  had  between  himself,  General  Johnston, 
General  Beauregard  and  myself.  Various  matters  of  detail  were 
introduced  by  the  President,  and  talked  over  between  himself 
and  the  two  senior  Generals. 

Having  but  recently  arrived,  and  not  being  well  acquainted 
with  the  special  subjects  referred  to,  I  took  little  or  no  part  in 
this  conversation.  Finally,  with  perhaps  some  abruptness,  I 
said :  "  Mr.  President,  is  it  not  possible  to  put  this  army  in  con 
dition  to  assume  the  active  offensive  ? "  adding  that  this  was  a 


MEMORANDUM  OF  COUNCIL  OF  WAR.  163 

question  of  vital  importance,  upon  which  the  success  or  failure 
of  our  cause  might  depend. 

This  question  brought  on  discussion. 

The  precise  conversation  which  followed  I  do  not  propose 
to  give.  It  was  an  argument.  There  seemed  to  be  little  differ 
ence  of  opinion  between  us  in  regard  to  general  views  and 
principles.  It  was  clearly  stated  and  agreed  to,  that  the  mili 
tary  force  of  the  Confederate  States  was  at  the  highest  point  it 
could  attain  without  arms  from  abroad ;  that  the  portion  of  this 
particular  army  present  for  duty  was  in  the  finest  fighting  con 
dition;  that  if  kept  inactive  it  must  retrograde  immensely  in 
every  respect  during  the  Winter,  the  effect  of  which  was  fore 
seen  and  dreaded  by  us  all. 

The  enemy  was  daily  increasing.  We  looked  forward  to  a 
sad  state  of  things  at  the  opening  of  a  Spring  campaign. 

These  and  other  points  being  agreed  upon  without  argu 
ment,  it  was  again  asked:  "Mr.  President,  is  it  not  possible  to 
increase  the  effective  strength  of  this  army,  and  put  us  in  a 
condition  to  cross  the  Potomac  and  carry  the  war  into  the 
enemy's  country  ?  Can  you  not,  by  stripping  other  points  to 
the  least  they  will  bear,  and  even  risking  defeat  at  all  other 
places,  put  us  in  condition  to  move  forward?  Success  here 
gains  all."  In  explanation,  and  as  an  illustration  of  this,  the 
unqualified  opinion  was  advanced  that  if  for  want  of  adequate 
strength  on  our  part  in  Kentucky  the  Federal  forces  should 
take  military  possession  of  that  whole  State,  and  even  enter 
and  occupy  a  portion  of  Tennessee,  a  victory  gained  by  the 
army  beyond  the  Potomac  would,  by  threatening  the  heart  of 
the  Northern  States,  compel  their  armies  to  fall  back,  free  Ken 
tucky,  and  give  us  the  line  of  the  Ohio  within  ten  days  there 
after.  On  the  other  hand,  should  our  forces  in  Tennessee  and 
Southern  Kentucky  be  strengthened  so  as  to  enable  us  to  take 
and  to  hold  the  Ohio  River  as  a  boundary,  a  disastrous  defeat  of 
this  army  would  at  once  be  followed  by  an  overwhelming  wave 
of  Northern  invaders,  that  would  sweep  over  Kentucky  and 
Tennessee,  extending  to  the  northern  part  of  the  cotton  States, 
if  not  to  New  Orleans.  Similar  views  were  expressed  in  regard 
to  ultimate  results  in  Northwestern  Virginia  being  dependent 


164  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

upon  the  success  or  failure  of  this ;  and  various  other  illustra 
tions  were  offered,  showing  that  success  here  was  success  every 
where  ;  defeat  here,  defeat  everywhere ;  and  that  this  was  the 
point  upon  which  all  the  available  forces  of  the  Confederate 
States  should  be  concentrated. 

It  seemed  to  be  conceded  by  all  that  our  force,  at  this  time 
here,  was  not  sufficient  for  assuming  the  offensive  beyond  the 
Potomac;  and  that  even  with  a  much  larger  force,  an  attack 
upon  their  army,  under  the  guns  of  their  fortifications  on  this 
side  of  the  river,  was  out  of  the  question.  The  President  asked 
me  what  number  of  men  was  necessary,  in  my  opinion,  to  war 
rant  an  offensive  campaign — to  cross  the  Potomac,  cut  off  the  com 
munications  of  the  enemy  with  their  fortified  capital,  and  carry 
the  war  into  their  own  country.  I  answered  fifty  thousand  sea 
soned  soldiers — explaining  that  by  "seasoned  soldiers"  I  meant 
such  men  as  we  had  here  present  for  duty ;  and  added  that  they 
would  have  to  be  drawn  from  the  Peninsula  about  Yorktown, 
Norfolk,  from  Western  Yirginia,  Pensacola,  or  wherever  might 
be  most  expedient.  Generals  Johnston  and  Beauregard  both 
said  that  a  force  of  sixty  thousand  such  men  would  be  necessary ; 
and  that  this  force  would  require  large  and  additional  transpor 
tation  and  munitions  of  war,  the  supplies  here  being  entirely 
inadequate  for  an  active  campaign  in  the  enemy's  country,  even 
with  our  present  force.  In  this  connection  there  was  some  dis 
cussion  of  the  difficulties  to  be  overcome,  and  the  probabilities 
of  success ;  but  no  one  questioned  the  disastrous  results  of  re 
maining  inactive  throughout  the  "Winter.  Notwithstanding  the 
belief  that  many  in  the  Northern  army  were  opposed  on  prin 
ciple  to  invading  the  Southern  States,  and  that  they  would  fight 
better  in  their  own  homes  than  in  attacking  ours,  it  was  be 
lieved  that  the  best,  if  not  the  only  plan  to  insure  success,  was 
to  concentrate  our  forces  and  attack  the  enemy  in  their  own 
country.  The  President,  I  think,  gave  no  definite  opinion  in 
regard  to  the  number  of  men  necessary  for  that  purpose ;  and  I 
am  sure  that  no  one  present  considered  this  a  question  to  be 
finally  decided  by  any  other  person  than  the  Commanding-Gen 
eral  of  this  army.  Eeturning  to  the  question  that  had  been 
twice  asked,  the  President  expressed  surprise  and  regret  that 


MEMORANDUM  OF  COUNCIL  OF  WAR.  165 

the  number  of  surplus  arms  here  was  so  small,  and,  I  thought, 
spoke  bitterly  of  this  disappointment.  He  then  stated  that  at 
that  time  no  reinforcements  could  be  furnished  to  this  army  of 
the  character  asked  for,  and  that  the  most  that  could  be  done 
would  be  to  furnish  recruits  to  take  the  surplus  arms  in  store 
here  (say  2,500  stand) ;  that  the  whole  country  was  demanding 
protection  at  his  hands,  and  praying  for  arms  and  troops  for 
defence.  lie  had  long  been  expecting  arms  from  abroad,  but 
he  had  been  disappointed.  He  still  hoped  to  get  them ;  but  he 
had  no  positive  assurance  that  they  would  be  received  at  all. 
The  manufacture  of  arms  in  the  Confederate  States  was  as  yet 
undeveloped  to  any  considerable  extent.  Want  of  arms  was 
the  great  difficulty. '  He  could  not  take  any  troops  from  the 
points  named,  and  without  arms  from  abroad  could  not  reinforce 
this  army.  He  expressed  regret,  and  seemed  to  feel  deeply,  as 
did  every  one  present. 

When  the  President  had  thus  clearly  and  positively  stated 
his  inability  to  put  this  army  in  the  condition  deemed  by  the 
Generals  necessary  before  entering  upon  an  active  offensive 
campaign,  it  was  felt  that  it  might  be  better  to  run  the  risk  of 
almost  certain  destruction,  fighting  upon  the  other  side  of  the 
Potomac,  rather  than  see  the  gradual  dying  out  and  deteriora 
tion  of  this  army  during  a  Winter,  at  the  end  of  which  the 
term  of  enlistment  of  half  the  force  would  expire.  The  pros 
pect  of  the  Spring  campaign  to  be  commenced  under  such  dis 
couraging  circumstances  was  rendered  all  the  more  gloomy  by 
the  daily  increasing  strength  of  an  enemy  already  much  supe 
rior  in  numbers.  On  the  other  hand  was  the  hope  and  expec 
tation  that  before  the  end  of  Winter  arms  would  be  introduced 
into  the  country,  and  all  were  confident  that  we  could  then  not 
only  protect  our  own  country,  but  successfully  invade  that  of 
the  enemy.  General  Johnston  said  that  he  did  not  feel  at  lib 
erty  to  express  an  opinion  as  to  the  practicability  of  reducing  the 
strength  of  our  force  at  points  not  within  the  limits  of  his  com 
mand;  and  with  but  few  further  remarks  from  any  one,  the 
answer  of  the  President  was  accepted  as  final,  and  it  was  felt 
that  there  was  no  other  course  left  but  to  take  a  defensive  posi 
tion  and  await  the  enemy. 


166  THE  EEVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

If  they  did  not  advance  we  had  but  to  await  the  Winter 
and  its  results. 

After  the  main  question  was  dropped  the  President  pro 
posed,  instead  of  an  active,  offensive  campaign,  we  should 
attempt  certain  partial  operations.  A  sudden  blow  against 
Sickles  and  Banks,  or  to  break  the  bridge  over  the  Monocacy. 
This,  he  thought,  besides  injuring  the  enemy,  would  exert  a 
good  influence  over  our  troops,  and  encourage  the  people  of  the 
Confederate  States  generally. 

In  regard  to  attacking  Sickles,  it  was  stated  in  reply  that, 
as  the  enemy  controlled  the  river  with  his  ships  of  war,  it  would 
be  necessary  for  us  to  occupy  two  points  on  the  river,  one  above 
and  the  other  below  our  point  of  crossing,  that  we  might  by 
our  batteries  prevent  their  armed  vessels  from  interfering  with 
the  passage  of  the  troops.  In  any  case,  the  difficulty  of  cross 
ing  large  bodies  over  wide  rivers  in  the  vicinity  of  such  an  enemy 
and  the  re-crossing  made  such  expeditions  hazardous.  It  was 
agreed,  however,  that  if  any  opportunity  should  occur  offering 
reasonable  chances  of  success,  the  attempt  should  be  made. 

During  this  conference  or  council,  which  lasted  perhaps  two 
hours,  all  was  earnest,  serious,  deliberate.  The  impression 
made  upon  me  was  deep  and  lasting ;  and  I  am  convinced  that 
the  foregoing  statement  is  not  only  correct  as  far  as  it  goes,  but, 
in  my  opinion,  it  gives  a  fair  idea  of  all  that  occurred  at  that 
time  in  regard  to  the  question  of  our  crossing  the  Potomac. 

CENTREVILLE  VA.,  January  31,  1862. 

Signed  in  triplicate. 

[Signed]  G.  W.  SMITH, 

Major-  General. 

My  recollection  of  the  above  conference  agrees  fully  with 
this  statement  of  General  G.  "W".  Smith. 

[Signed]  G.  T.  BEATJEEGAUD, 

General  0.  £  A. 

[Signed]  J.  E.  JOHNSTON, 

General. 


MR.  KANDALL'S  COMMENTS  CONCLUDED.  167 


IY. — CONCLUSION  OF  Mr.  RANDALL'S  EDITORIAL  IN  WHICH  THE 
FOREGOING  LETTERS  AND  PAPER.  HAD  BEEN  INCORPORATED. 

In  reply  to  Mr.  Barksdale,  so  far  as  it  concerns  the  "  sketch  " 
in  the  Constitutionalist,  to  which  he  refers  in  his  letter  to  Mr. 
Stephens,  we  feel  it  incumbent  on  us,  as  a  duty,  to  add,  in  con 
clusion,  that  he  has  fallen  into  two  "  grave  errors  "  himself. 

1st.  The  "  sketch  "  in  the  Constitutionalist,  to  which  he  al 
ludes,  did  not  "  purport "  to  be  "  authorized  ly  "  Mr.  Stephens. 
There  was  no  such  indication  or  intimation  in  it  from  beginning 
to  end.  In  point  of  fact,  Mr.  Stephens  knew  no  more  about  it, 
or  the  design  of  the  editor  of  this  paper  to  give  such  a  "  sketch  " 
of  the  book,  until  he  saw  it  in  print,  than  he  did  of  the  editorial 
of  the  Clarion  in  question. 

2d.  There  is  in  that  "  sketch "  or  review  of  the  book  no 
such  statement  as  athat  President  Davis  prevented  the  General 
in  command  of  the  Confederate  forces  from  pursuing  the  enemy 
from  the  field  of  Manassas  to  Washington  City" 

It  was  to  rebut  this  statement,  Mr.  Barksdale  says,  he  pro 
cured  for  the  first  time  the  correspondence  between  President 
Davis  and  General  Johnston.  The  correspondence  does  con 
clusively  rebut  that  statement,  if  anybody  ever  made  it.  But 
Mr.  Barksdale,  added  by  the  most  powerful  microscope,  will 
fail  to  find  it  in  the  article  of  the  Constitutionalist  referred  to. 
The  language  of  that  article,  in  giving  briefly  what  we  under 
stood  Mr.  Stephens  to  say,  in  reply  to  the  question  touching  the 
inactivity  of  the  army  during  the  Fall  of  1861,  was :  "  The 
responsibility  for  the  failure  to  advance  after  the  battle  of  Ma 
nassas  is  referred  to  President  Davis."  There  is  nothing  in 
this  about  President  Davis  having  "  prevented  the  General  in 
command  of  the  Confederate  forces  from  pursuing  the  enemy 
from  the  field  of  Manassas  to  Washington  City."  There  was 
no  allusion  whatever  to  an  immediate  advance  of  the  army. 
The  allusion  was  to  the  general  inactivity  of  that  army,  em 
braced  in  the  question  put  to  Mr.  Stephens  by  Major  Heister. 
On  this  point,  we  said  the  responsibility  for  the  failure  to  ad 
vance  is  "  referred  to  President  Davis." 


168  THE  REVIEWERS  EEVIEWED. 

We  did  not  understand  Mr.  Stephens  as  intending  to  cast 
any  censure  upon  President  Davis  in  the  detail  of  facts  as  far  as 
he  knew  them ;  and  we  certainly  did  not  mean  to  cast  any  upon 
him  in  the  version  of  the  substance  of  those  facts.  Responsi 
bility  does  not  of  itself  imply  censure.  That  depends  entirely 
upon  other  considerations.  Who  would  think  that  any  one 
meant  to  cast  censure  upon  Gen.  Taylor  for  saying  that  the 
responsibility  of  fighting  the  battle  of  Buena  Yista  rested  entirely 
upon  him  ?  "We  may  have  misconceived  Mr.  Stephens'  idea. 
We  have  had  no  conference  with  him  on  this  point,  either  be 
fore  or  since  the  publication  of  our  "  sketch  "  alluded  to ;  but 
we  submit  to  intelligent  readers,  with  all  the  facts  before  them, 
whether  he  was  "  misreported"  by  us,  as  the  Clarion  says. 
With  the  full  text  of  the  work  "before  us,  we  believe  that  Mr. 
Stephens  means  by  what  he  says  in  it,  that  the  responsibility  of 
the  inactivity  of  the  army  of  G-en.  Johnston,  during  the  Fall 
of  1861,  does  rest  upon  Mr.  Davis.  But  we  do  not  understand 
him  in  so  holding  to  mean  to  pronounce  any  judgment  of  cen 
sure  against  the  President  for  exercising  that  responsibility  in 
disapproving  the  plan  of  aggressive  movements  submitted  to 
him  by  the  Generals  in  the  Council  of  War  that  was  held,  the 
account  of  which  now,  for  the  first  time,  has  been  given  to  the 
public. 

Whether  President  Davis'  views  or  those  of  his  Generals 
were  the  wiser,  under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  it  is  not 
our  province  or  disposition  at  this  time  to  pass  judgment.  But 
it  does  seem  to  us,  in  view  of  all  the  facts  as  thus  far  disclosed, 
that  the  responsibility  of  the  course  of  events,  in  a  military 
aspect,  during  the  Fall  of  1861,  did  rest  upon  him.  This  by  no 
means,  however,  implies  censure  of  itself.  It  may  be  that  his 
views  were  founded  upon  a  vast  deal  more  of  statesmanship  and 
generalship  than  those  of  Johnston,  Beauregard,  and  Smith. 
That,  as  Mr.  Stephens  says,  "is  a  matter  of  speculation."  His 
views,  however,  prevailed.  He  was  the  Commander-in-Chief, 
and  we  are  surprised  to  see  so  devoted  a  friend  to  his  reputation, 
as  Mr.  Barksdale  is,  so  sensitive  upon  the  simple  statement  of 
so  palpable  a  fact. 

We  can  assure  Mr.  Barksdale,  in  making  these  remarks, 


MR.  STEPHENS'  REJOINDER  TO  MR.   BARKSDALE.     169 

that  we  entertain  no  unkind  feelings  toward  him  or  Mr.  Davis. 
Our  sole  object  is  to  set  him  right  so  far  as  the  Constitutionalist 
is  concerned,  and  the  "sketch"  which  was,  as  he  says,  the 
foundation  on  which  he  produced  his  first  article  in  the  Clarion. 


V. — ME.  STEPHENS'  REJOINDER  TO  ME.  BARKSDALE'S  REPLY  TO 
His  FIRST  LETTER. 

LIBERTY  HALL,  i 

CRAWFORDVILLE,  GA.,  August  6,  1870.  \ 

Hon.  E.  Barksdale: 

DEAR  SIR  :  —  A  copy  of  your  paper  of  the  22d  ult.,  contain 
ing  my  letter  to  you  of  the  6th,  about  the  events  succeeding 
the  first  "  Battle  of  Manassas,"  and  your  reply  to  it,  of  the  16th, 
etc.,  was  received  several  days  ago ;  but  the  press  of  other  busi 
ness,  when  I  have  been  able  to  write  at  all,  since  then,  has  pre 
vented  me  from  responding  to  you  sooner  upon  the  subject. 

You  will  allow  me,  I  trust,  a  few  words  further  to  your 
readers,  and  the  public  generally,  through  the  medium  of  the 
Clarion,  by  way  of  vindication.  Not,  however,  for  the  purpose 
or  in  the  spirit  of  controversy.  Indeed,  upon  the  leading  and 
important  facts,  as  they  stand  stated  in  the  extract  I  sent  you, 
it  does  seem  to  me  that  there  can  be  no  controversy  between 
intelligent  minds ;  and  until  you  distinctly  specify  some  error 
in  that  statement  I  have  nothing  more  to  say  in  reference  to  it. 
My  object  at  this  time  is  simply  and  briefly  to  call  attention  to 
some  points  in  your  reply  which,  if  permitted  to  pass  unnoticed 
by  me,  might  lead  many  to  form  very  erroneous  conclusions  in 
reference  to  the  matters  embraced  in  them. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  you  will  please  allow  me  to  remark 
that  you  were  mistaken  in  saying,  as  you  did  in  your  reply  to 
me,  that  the  "  sketch  "  of  the  2d  volume,  of  my  work  on  the 
war,  published  in  the  Augusta  Constitutionalist,  to  which  you 
refer,  "purported"  to  be  "authorized  T>y  me"  When  I  saw 
your  reply  I  thought  it  strange  that  any  such  feature  about  that 
article  should  have  escaped  my  attention ;  for,  in  point  of  fact, 
I  knew  nothing  about  it  until  I  saw  it  in  print.  I  did  not  know 


170  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

that  the  writer  had  any  intention  of  preparing  anything  of  the 
kind ;  and  upon  reference  to  it  since,  I  see  that  you  were  mis 
taken  in  this  particular  —  there  is  nothing  about  that  article 
bearing  any  such  "purport" 

In  the  second  place,  you  will  allow  me  to  say,  there  is  in 
that  "  sketch,"  or  review,  no  such  statement  as  "  that  President 
Davis  prevented  the  General  in  command  of  the  Confederate 
forces  from  pursuing  the  enemy  from  the  field  of  Man-assets  to 
Washington  City"  etc. 

This  is  the  statement  so  "  apparently  endorsed"  by  me  which 
you  say  you  deemed  it  proper  to  put  at  rest  forever,  by  the 
publication  of  the  correspondence  between  President  Davis  and 
General  Johnston  in  your  first  article  in  the  Clarion. 

Now  if  that  "  sketch  "  had  represented  me  as  having  made 
any  such  statement  in  the  book  as  that  thus  attributed  to  it  in 
your  reply  to  me,  I  should  have  corrected  the  Editor,  and  set 
him  right  in  this  matter,  as  promptly  as  I  did  you  upon  seeing 
your  first  article  in  the  Clarion.  The  correspondence  you  pro 
duced  did  most  certainly  show,  that  any  statement  such  as  that, 
by  whomsoever  made,  if  by  anybody,  was  exceedingly  erroneous. 
But  you  must  remember  that  I  made  no  such  statement,  nor 
did  the  Editor  of  the  Constitutionalist  in  the  article  referred  to. 

In  the  third  and  last  place,  I  wish  now  simply  to  add,  that 
in  the  extract  from  the  book,  which  you  had  before  you,  and 
which  the  public  have,  with  your  reply  —  in  that  part  treating 
of  the  events  subsequent  to  the  first  Battle  of  Manassas  and 
President  Davis  in  connection  with  them,  there  is  no  such  state 
ment  or  expression  as  "  that  three  months  thereafter  the  fruits 
of  the  victory  which  had  then  passed  into  history  were  not  reaped 
1y  the  Generals  in  consequence  of  his  disapproval" 

This  is  the  statement  which  you  undertook  to  assail  in  your 
reply  to  me ;  but  I  have  only  to  remind  you  and  your  readers 
that  no  such  language  as  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  extract  or 
the  book — none  such  was  ever  used  by  me  on  any  occasion. 
I  am  responsible  only  for  my  own  language,  and  my  own  words 
—  their  due  and  proper  import  I  think  I  understand ;  and  if 
you  can  point  out  a  single  error  in  the  statement  of  facts  as  it 
stands  in  the  extract  and  in  the  book,  in  my  own  language  on 


MR.  BARKSDALE'S   SUR-REJOINDER. 

the  subject,  I  shall  be  greatly  obliged  to  you  to  do  it  —  this 
you  have  certainly  not  yet  done. 

Yours  most  respectfully, 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 


VI. — MR.  BARKSDALE'S  SUR-REJOINDER. 

JACKSON,  August,  1870. 

Hon.  A.  H.  STEPHENS  : 

DEAR  SIR  :  —  I  will  publish  your  letter  with  pleasure,  ac 
companying  it  with  a  brief  reply.  The  main  object  of  the 
correspondence  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  has  been  accomplished. 
The  "  truth  of  history  has  been  vindicated."  The  heretofore 
unpublished  correspondence  between  President  Davis  and  Gen 
eral  J.  E.  Johnston  has  removed  from  the  public  mind  the 
erroneous  impression  that  the  failure  of  the  Confederate  Army 
to  pursue  the  enemy  after  the  battle  of  Manassas  was  due  to  the 
interference  of  the  former ;  and  the  no  less  erroneous  statement 
that  he  subsequently  opposed  a  forward  movement,  and  thus 
prevented  the  fruits  of  the  victory  from  being  reaped,  has  also 
been  corrected.  Since  the  appearance  of  my  last  letter  on  this 
subject,  both  the  facts  have  been  verified  by  the  publication  of 
an  account  of  the  Conference  which  was  held  in  October,  1861, 
over  the  signature  of  Generals  Smith,  Johnston,  and  Beauregard. 
You  will  pardon  me  for  expressing  the  hope  that  corrections,  or 
explanations,  corresponding  to  them,  will  appear  in  a  revised 
edition  of  your  second  volume. 

In  conclusion,  I  will  briefly  notice  the  points  contained  in 
your  last  letter. 

1.  The  inference   that   you  authorized  or  sanctioned  the 
publication  of  the  original  "sketch,"  was  warranted  by  your 
having  furnished  its  author  with  advance  sheets  of  your  work. 
It  was  copied  by  the  whole  press  of  the  country,  North  and 
South,  and  accepted  by  the  public  as  a  true  statement  of  the 
facts  to  which  it  related ;  and  yet  after  weeks  of  circulation,  it 
failed  to  receive  your  correction. 

2.  In  writing  that  President  Davis  had  been  charged  with 


1Y2  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

"  preventing  the  General  in  command  of  the  Confederate  forces 
from  pursuing  the  enemy  from  Manassas  to  "Washington,"  I  did 
not  pretend  to  quote  the  exact  language  employed,  but  was 
commenting  on  a  statement  which  you  will  admit  has  the  same 
meaning  precisely.  The  following  is  the  extract  from  the 
sketch,  which  elicited  the  comment :  "  The  responsibility  of  the 
failure  to  advance  after  the  battle  is  referred  (attributed)  to  Mr. 
Dovish 

3.  True,  the  extract  from  your  book  does  not  say,  in  so 
many  words,  that  President  Davis  "  prevented  the  fruits  of  the 
victory  from  being  reaped  three  months  after  it  had  passed  into 
history  by  disapproving  a  forward  movement."  Having  quoted 
your  precise  language,  I  could  not  have  attributed  any  other 
words  to  you  than  those  actually  employed.  But  I  did  mean 
to  state  that  you  had  said  in  effect  precisely  the  same  thing  as  the 
following  quotation  from  your  ~book  will  show : 

"  Such  a  movement  (as  an  immediate  pressing  forward  to  Washington 
after  the  battle)  was  altogether  impracticable.  As  to  the  state  of  things 
aftencards,  that  is  a  different  question.  All  I  know  on  that  point  is  that 
Gen.  Johnston  did  wish  to  make  some  movement  of  the  sort  early  in  the  fall 
....  For  this  object  a  council  of  war  was  held.  .  .  .  The  result  of  the 
council  was  the  disapproval  ~by  Mr.  Dams  of  the  plan  proposed." 

The  battle  was  fought  on  the  21st  of  July.  The  council  was 
held  in  the  early  part  of  October  ;  and  you  must  concur  with 
me  that  Mr.  Davis  is  represented  to  have  "disapproved"  a 
movement  "to  reap  the  fruits  of  thex victory  three  months  after 
it  had  passed  into  history." 

If  the  sketch  had  not  erroneously  reported  you  to  have  stated 
that  Mr.  Davis  was  responsible  "  for  the  failure  to  advance  after 
the  battle  of  Manassas  ; "  and  if  you  had  not  really  alleged  that 
he  had  "  disapproved  "  "  of  some  movement  of  the  sort "  in  the 
council  of  war  held  in  October,  there  could  have  been  no  occa 
sion  for  a  correspondence,  which  I  repeat  has  been  conducted 
on  my  part  in  no  spirit  of  controversy, 

I  am  yours,  very  respectfully, 

E.  BARKSDALE. 


MR.  STEPHENS'  REBUTTAL.  173 


VII. — ME.  STEPHENS'  LETTER  IN  REBUTTAL. 

LIBERTY  HALL,  ) 

CRAWFORDYILLE,  GA.,  August  28,  1870.  J 

Hon.  E.  BARKSDALE  : 

DEAR  SIR  : — A  copy  of  the  Clarion  of  the  18th  inst.,  contain 
ing  my  letter  to  you  of  the  6th  inst.,  ("by  way  of  Rejoinder  " 
not  of  vindication  as  printed)  ;  and  your  comments  about  it, 
was  received  this  morning. 

This  requires  further  notice  from  me,  lest  silence  on  my 
part  may  be  construed  into  an  admission  of  some  matters  which 
I  am  very  far  from  making. 

You  will  therefore  please  allow  me  to  say  to  you,  and  to 
your  readers,  that  I  do  not  admit  that  the  statement  in  the 
Constitutionalist,  on  which  you  had  commented  in  your  pre 
vious  letter,  "has  the  same  meaning  precisely"  as  the  para 
phrase  of  it  by  yon.  I  do  not  admit  that  it  had,  in  its  whole 
connection,  any  such  meaning  whatever,  as  that  conveyed  by 
the  words  you  used  in  giving  its  purport. 

You  will  allow  me  also  to  say,  that  I  do  not  "  concur  with  " 
you  in  holding  that  "  Mr.  Davis  is  represented  "  by  me  in  the 
2nd  vol.  of  my  work  upon  the  war,  as  having  "  disapproved"  a 
movement,  "  to  reap  the  fruits  of  the  victory  "  (of  the  first 
battle  of  Manassas)  "  three  months  after  it  had  passed  into  his 
tory." 

You  say  in  substance,  that  I  must  concur  with  you,  in  holding 
that  this  is  the  purport  of  my  statement  in  the  book.  Now  I 
say  to  you,  most  respectfully  and  emphatically,  that  I  do  not 
concur  in  any  such  construction  of  the  language  used  by  me  as 
that  by  which  any  such  distorted  meaning  can  be  given  to  it ; 
and  I  enter  my  protest  against  any  such  construction  being  put 
upon  it. 

The  substance  of  what  is  said  in  the  book  as  to  my  knowl 
edge  of  the  facts  bearing  upon  the  inactivity  of  the  Confederate 
Army  at  Manassas  during  the  Fall  of  1861  —  after  the  battle 
of  the  21st  July,  you  and  your  readers  will  recollect  amounts  to 
this : 


174:  TEE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

The  Confederate  Army  at  that  place  was,  in  my  opinion,  in 
no  condition  to  make  an  advance  movement  immediately  after 
that  battle ;  that  Gen.  Johnston  did  wish  to  make  some  move 
ment  of  the  sort  in  the  early  Fall  after  he  was  better  prepared. 

That  his  plan  was  to  concentrate  as  quickly  as  possible  at 
that  place  a  force  sufficient  for  that  purpose,  ichich  could  le  done 
only  by  leaving  bare  remote  points  then  defended  ;  that  for  the 
consideration  of  that  policy  a  Council  of  "War  was  held  at  his 
headquarters ;  that  Mr.  Davis  went  up  from  Eichrnond,  and  met 
in  this  Council  Generals  Johnston,  Beauregard,  and  Gustavus 
"W.  Smith ;  that  the  result  of  this  Council  of  War  was  the  dis 
approval  of  Mr.  Davis  of  the  policy  proposed  —  that  is,  he  dis 
approved  of  the  proposition  submitted  for  an  advance  movement, 
by  concentrating  at  Manassas  the  required  forces,  which  could  be 
done  only  ~by  leaving  ~bare  remote  places  then  defended. 

This  is  a  brief  but  clear  statement  of  the  substance  of  all 
that  is  set  forth  in  the  book  about  the  subject.  In  it  there  is 
nothing  but  the  mention  of  facts  only,  so  far  as  my  knowledge 
extended." 

On  the  merits  or  demerits  of  the  policy  suggested,  I  gave 
you  no  opinion  whatever ;  on  the  contrary,  I  expressly  abstained 
from  giving  any  opinion.  My  object  was  simply  to  state  the 
facts  accurately  as  far  as  they  had  come  to  my  knowledge, 
leaving  all  to  form  their  own  opinions  from  the  facts  stated. 

Now  the  only  real  question  between  us  —  that  which  gave 
rise  to  this  correspondence  —  is  whether  the  statement  of  facts 
as  above  set  forth,  being  substantially  the  same  as  that  set  forth 
in  the  book,  be  correct  or  not. 

You  will  recollect  that,  in  your  first  article  on  this  subject  in 
the  Clarion,  you  maintained  that  I  had  in  it  committed  an 
"  error,  scarcely  excusable  in  one  occupying  my  position,  and 
who  had  undertaken  to  write  for  posterity."  In  my  reply  of 
the  6th  of  July  last,  I  gave  you  the  exact  extract  of  the  book  in 
full  upon  the  subject,  and  stated  that  "  if  it  be  shown  that  I  had 
fallen  into  an  error  upon  any  point,  however  small  a  one,  it 
would  be  most  cheerfully  corrected  in  all  subsequent  edi 
tions." 

"Without  having  pointed  out  any  error  in  the  statement,  as  it 


MR.  STEPHENS'  REBUTTAL,  175 

stands  in  my  own  language  in  the  book,  in  either  of  your  sub 
sequent  letters  to  me,  you  nevertheless  express  a  "  hope  "  in  the 
last  of  these  letters  received  to-day,  that  "corrections  and 
explanations  will  appear  in  a  revised  edition  of  the  2d  volume  " 
of  my  work,  "  corresponding"  with  the  facts  brought  to  light  by 
the  correspondence  (which  you  published  for  the  first  time) 
between  President  Davis  and  General  Joseph  E.  Johnston,  and 
by  the  account  of  the  Council  of  War  or  Conference  near 
Manassas  in  the  Fall  of  1861,  lately  given  to  the  public  for  the 
first  time  over  the  signatures  of  Generals  Smith,  Beauregard, 
and  Johnston,  and  which,  I  may  add,  was  most  probably  brought 
to  light  by  this  correspondence. 

Now  in  reply  to  this,  I  ask  you  most  seriously  and  earnestly, 
wherein  is  there  the  slightest  discrepancy  or  derangement  be 
tween  any  thing  in  either  of  these  lately  published  papers,  and 
the  statement  as  it  stands  in  the  book  ?  Do  they  not  confirm 
it  in  every  particular  ?  If  I  had  had  the  correspondence  be 
tween  President  Davis  and  General  Johnston,  and  the  account 
of  the  conference  referred  to  by  you  (recently  published  over 
the  signatures  of  Generals  Smith,  Beauregard,  and  Johnston) 
before  me  when  I  was  penning  the  statement  of  the  facts  as  it 
stands  in  the  book,  could  I  have  possibly  made  it  more  strictly 
conform  to  both  these  papers  than  it  does  ? 

Does  not  General  Johnston,  in  his  letter  to  President  Davis, 
published  by  you,  say,  in  substance,  that  the  army  at  Manassas 
was  not  in  a  condition  to  make  an  advance  movement  imme 
diately  after  the  battle  of  the  21st  of  July,  1861  ?  Is  not  this  in 
strict  accordance  with  what  I  said  upon  that  subject  ? 

Does  not  General  Johnston  also  in  his  letter  of  the  10th  of 
November,  1861,  expressly  say  to  Mr.  Davis,  "  after  a  confer 
ence  at  Fairfax  C.  H.  with  these  senior  general  officers,  you  an 
nounced  it  to  be  impracticable  to  give  this  army  the  strength 
which  these  officers  considered  necessary  to  enable  it  to  assume 
the  offensive  ? " 

Does  this  statement  conflict  in  the  least  with  the  statement 
by  me  ?  So  far  from  conflicting  with  it,  does  it  not  sustain  it 
to  the  very  letter  so  far  as  it  goes  ? 

Then,  as  to  the  account  of  the  Conference  or  Council  of 


176  THE  KEVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

"War  recently  published  by  Generals  Smith,  Beauregard,  and 
Johnston. 

Does  not  this  show  clearly  that  General  Johnston  did  desire 
in  the  early  Fall  of  1861  to  make  some  sort  of  a  forward  or 
aggressive  movement  ?  Does  it  not  show  that  a  Council  of 
War  was  held  upon  the  subject  at  or  near  Manassas,  at  which 
Mr.  Davis  was  present,  in  the  latter  part  of  September  ?  Does 
it  not  show  that  General  Johnston  did  submit  for  consideration 
such  plan  as  I  stated  for  an  advance  movement  ?  Does  it  not 
show  that  Mr.  Davis  disapproved  of  it  \  Does  not  the  paper  to 
which  you  refer  represent  him  as  saying  that  "  he  could  not 
take  any  troops  from  the  points  named? "  Does  not  this  paper 
expressly  state  in  behalf  of  the  General  in  Command  that  this 
answer  of  the  President  "  was  accepted  as  final  and  it  was 
felt  that  there  was  no  other  course  left  but  to  take  a  defensive 
position  and  await  the  enemy." 

Is  there,  my  Dear  Sir,  anything  in  this  statement  in  conflict 
with  mine  ?  Is  there  anything  in  the  written  paper  to  which 
you  refer  in  conflict  in  the  slightest  particular  with  the  state 
ment  of  facts  on  this  subject  as  it  stands  in  the  book  \  If  there 
is,  I  assure  you  it  has  escaped  my  attention,  and  I  repeat  in 
conclusion,  that  if  I  had  had  that  paper  before  me  when  my 
statement  was  written,  I  do  not  think  that  I  could  have  made  it 
more  strictly  in  conformity  with  its  general  details  than  it  now 
stands.  I,  therefore,  as  yet  see  no  reason  for  revising  or  modi 
fying  the  text  in  any  particular.  If  there  be  any  error  in  it,  I 
do  not  yet  perceive  it. 

Yours  respectfully, 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 


AETICLE  VII. 

THE  BATTLE  OF  OLUSTEE,  OE  OCEAN  POND. 

I. — EDITORIAL  OF  THE  SAVANNAH  "REPUBLICAN,"  JULY,  1870, 
ON  THE  SUBJECT. 

"  Olustee." 

AT  the  instance  of  a  friend,  we  some  days  ago  published  the 
resolutions  of  the  Confederate  Congress  thanking  General 
Finegan  for  the  success  of  the  battle  of  Olustee  or  Ocean  Pond, 
Mr.  Stephens  in  his  history  having  given  the  credit  to  General 
Colquitt.  AVe  had  not  the  slightest  idea  then,  nor  have  we 
now,  of  engaging  in  any  controversy  on  the  subject,  our  object 
being  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  Mr.  Stephens  a  fact  which  we 
thought  he  may  have  overlooked  in  preparing  the  materials  for 
his  history,  viz. :  that  the  command  at  Olustee  was  in  the  hands 
of  General  Finegan ;  and  however  brave  and  skilful  subordin 
ates  may  prove  themselves,  it  is  usual  to  ascribe  the  greatest 
glory  of  the  victory  to  that  officer.  Mr.  Stephens'  reply  to  that 
publication,  addressed  to  a  gentleman  of  this  city,  who  for 
warded  to  him  a  copy  of  the  Republicans  article,  will  be  found 
in  another  column. 


II. — LETTER  OF  MR.  STEPHENS  (REFERRED  TO)  ON  SAME 
SUBJECT. 

LIBERTY  HALL,  ) 

CRAWFORD VILLE,  GEORGIA,  July  13,  1870.  \ 

MR.  CHARLES  ELLIS,  Savannah,  Ga. : 

DEAR  SIR  : — Yours  of  the  llth  instant,  inclosing  a  slip  from 
the  Savannah  Republican  of  the  8th  instant,  was  received  by 
me  this  morning.     That  slip  is  in  these  words : 
12 


178  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

"  '  Honor  to  Whom  Honor  is  Due1 — As  there  has  been  some  effort  —  we 
are  persuaded  purely  from  the  want  of  correct  information  —  to  deprive  a 
brave  officer  of  the  credit  that  is  his  due,  we  transcribe  from  the  Acts  of 
the  Confederate  Congress  as  follows  : 

"  '  JOINT     RESOLUTION     OP     THANKS       TO     GENERAL     FINEGAN    AND      THE 
OFFICERS  AND  MEN   OF   HIS    COMMAND. 

"  '  Resolved  ly  the  Congress  of  the  Confederate  States  of  America,  That 
the  thanks  of  Congress  are  due  and  are  hereby  tendered  to  Brigadier- 
General  Joseph  Finegan,  and  the  officers  and  men  of  his  command,  for 
the  skill  and  gallantry  displayed  in  achieving  the  signal  victory  of  Ocean 
Pond,  Florida,  on  the  20th  of  February  last. 

[Signed]  THOS.  S.  BOCOCK. 

"  *  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

R,  M.  T.  HUNTER, 
'"President  pro  tern,  of  the  Senate. 
"  'Approved  17th  of  May,  1864. 
'"JEFFERSON  DAVIS.'  " 

Yon  call  my  attention  to  tins  slip,  but  for  what  object  or  with 
what  purpose  you  do  not  state ;  and  I  should  be  at  a  loss  to 
imagine  if  I  had  not  a  few  days  ago  received  through  the  hands 
of  a  friend,  a  slip  from  another  paper,  in  which  comments  were 
made  upon  the  statement  in  the  second  volume  of  my  work 
upon  the  war,  in  relation  to  the  battle  of  Ocean  Pond,  referred 
to  in  the  resolutions  you  have  enclosed  to  me. 

From  this,  and  the  language  of  the  Editor  of  the  Republican 
accompanying  the  reproduction  of  the  resolutions,  I  am  led  to 
infer  that  you  as  well  as  Mr.  Sneed  and  others,  may  be  of 
opinion  that  the  statement  in  the  work  referred  to  is  calculated 
"  to  deprive  a  brave  officer  (General  Finegan)  of  the  credit 
that  is  his  due." 

If  so,  you  and  all  others  may  be  assured  that  nothing  was 
further  from  my  intention  than  any  design  of  that  character. 
My  object  was  to  give  the  facts  of  the  case  without  detracting 
from  or  magnifying  the  merits  of  any  one. 

The  statement  in  the  book  (vol.  2,  page  581)  is  in  these 
words : 

"  This  year  "  (the  third  year  of  the  war)  "  was  ushered  in,  even  in  its 
dawn,  by  the  splendid  victory  at  Ocean  Pond,  Florida,  on  the  20th  Feb 
ruary,  achieved  under  the  lead  of  Brigadier-General  Alfred  H.  Colquitt, 
against  General  Truman  Seymour,  commanding  the  Federals.  With  less 
than  5,000  men  Colquitt  put  Seymour  to  rout,  with  more  than  6,000 ; 


MR.   STEPHENS  ON  BATTLE  OF  OLUSTEE.  179 

killing,  wounding,  and  capturing  2,500  men,  and  taking  three  Napoleon 
guns,  two  ten-pounder  Parrots,  and  3,000  stand  of  small-arms." 

This  is  all  in  perfect  accord  with  the  facts  as  I  understand 
them.  It  is  true,  as  is  well  known,  that  the  brave  and  gallant 
Finegan  was  in  command  of  the  general  military  operations  on 
the  Confederate  side  at  that  time  in  Florida. 

But  it  is  equally  true,  as  I  understand  it,  that  he  had  as 
signed  the  entire  command  of  all  the  Confederate  forces  engaged 
in  the  action  at  Ocean  Pond  to  General  Colquitt.  The  whole 
battle  then,  from  beginning  to  end,  was  committed  to  his  dis 
cretion,  direction,  and  control ;  with  but  one  limitation,  and 
that  was  "  if  hard  pressed  to  fall  back  to  the  works  at  Olustee 
station." 

This  splendid  victory,  therefore,  was  certainly,  as  I  under 
stand  it,  "  achieved  under  the  lead  of  General  Colquitt" 

The  affirmance  of  this  truth,  if  the  facts  be  as  I  think  they 
are,  by  no  means  detracts  from  the  honor  conferred  upon 
General  Finegan  by  Congress,  for  his  superior  skill  and  forecast 
in  having  a  concentration  of  forces  to  meet  Gen.  Seymour's 
advance  ;  and  in  assigning  the  command  of  these  forces  to  the 
officer  he  did.  It  only  renders  to  General  Colquitt  that  honor 
which  is  justly  due  him  for  the  important  part  he  acted,  as  one  of 
the  officers  under  General  Finegan  (and  embraced  equally  with 
him  though  not  named  in  the  same  resolution)  "  in  achieving 
this  signal  victory/' 

This  great  result  at  Ocean  Pond,  so  far  as  depended  upon 
field  operations,  as  I  understand  the  fact,  was  achieved  under 
General  Colquitt's  immediate  lead  and  general  direction.  This 
is  the  substance  of  the  statement  in  the  book  upon  that  subject ; 
and  I  think  upon  close  examination  the  facts  will  be  found  to  be 
substantially  as  therein  stated. 

This  certainly  does  not  detract  from  the  high  merits  of  Gen. 
Finegan  who  had  control  of  the  general  campaign. 

You  will  please  do  me  the  favor  to  ask  Mr.  Sneed  to  give 
this  communication  a  place  in  the  columns  of  the  Republican. 

"With  kindest  regards  and  sentiments  of  the  highest  respect, 

I  remain  yours  truly, 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 


AETICLE  YIIL 

TEE  FORGED   SPEECH. 

I. — LETTER  OF  ME.  STEPHENS  ON  THIS  SUBJECT. 

LIBERTY  HALL,  ) 

CRAWFORDVILLE,  GA.,  October  28,  1870.  \ 

Col.  John  W.  Forney,  Editor  of  the  Sunday  Morning  Chronicle, 

Washington,  D.  C. : 

DEAR  SIR: — I  have  just  come  in  possession,  through  the 
kindness  of  a  friend,  of  a  copy  of  your  paper  of  the  4th  ult., 
and  my  attention  is  called  to  quite  an  extended  editorial  in  it 
upon  the  "  Constitutional  View  of  the  Late  War  Between  the 
States,"  which  requires  special  and  prompt  notice  by  me. 
.  "With  the  general  tone  and  character  of  the  editorial  referred 
to,  I  have  no  disposition  to  complain,  under  the  circumstances. 
On  the  contrary,  for  what  you  say  in  it  of  my  position,  and  the 
general  "respect"  in  which  I  was  "held  by  the  reflecting  peo 
ple  of  the  country"  before  the  "Rebellion"  as  you  are  pleased 
to  call  the  late  "  war  between  the  States,"  and  of  my  efforts  to 
preserve  the  Institutions  of  our  ancestors  on  the  Federative 
basis  on  which  they  were  fotonded,  you  have  my  thanks.  Of 
course  all  this  was  justly  forfeited  in  your  estimation,  according 
to  the  views  you  entertain  of  the  subject,  by  my  subsequent 
conduct.  Hence,  what  you  say  of  "Rebel  Leaders"  and  other 
things  of  like  character,  are  but  legitimate  sequences  from  your 
premises;  as  is  also  your  seeming  amazement  that  any  one 
should  attempt  to  justify  what  you  look  upon  as  treason. 
These  parts  of  your  notice  of  the  work,  therefore,  contain 
nothing  more  than  might  have  been  expected  from  any  one 
occupying  your  position.  Upon  them  I  have  no  inclination  to 
comment  at  present. 


MR.   STEPHENS  ON"  THE  FORGED  SPEECH.  181 

But  you  will  indulge  me  in  saying,  I  trust,  that  there  is 
matter  incorporated  in  this  editorial,  which,  coming  from  the 
source  it  doesj  or  being  in  this  instance  endorsed  by  your  au 
thority,  as  it  is,  I  cannot  permit  to  pass  in  silence.  The  wrong 
is  too  great,  too  grave,  and  too  atrocious.  The  error  is  too  foul 
and  flagrant  to  be  allowed  to  go  to  your  readers  without  an  ex 
posure.  The  cause  of  truth  and  justice  demands  its  correction 
by  me. 

In  the  article  referred  to,  you  say  of  the  work  you  were 
reviewing : 

"And  we  have  a  second  book  of  several  hundred  pages,  justifying  the 
rebellion  against  the  Government,  capable  of  all  these  great  ends,  and 
quoting  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  in  the  cause  of  that  justifi 
cation." 

It  is  not  my  purpose  at  this  time,  to  take  any  exceptions  at 
your  statement  thus  made  of  the  object  of  the  work ;  but  what 
I  do  most  decidedly  object  to  is  the  matter  which  you  adduced 
as  argument  "fully  replying"  to  the  positions  maintained  in 
the  two  volumes. 

These  positions  you  do  not  even  attempt  to  assail  yourself 
directly,  nor  do  you  venture  to  deny  that,  if  they  are  correct, 
the  "justification"  claimed  is  unquestionably  established /  but 
you  content  yourself  with  .an  effort  to  meet  and  break  the 
whole  force  of  the  truths  set  forth  in  the  work,  simply  by  a 
resort  to  the  argumentum  ad  hominem. 

This  kind  of  argument,  you  very  prudently  concede,  is  not 
always  legitimate,  much  less  conclusive,  inasmuch  as  you  care 
fully  admit  that  able,  as  well  as  true  men,  engaged  in  public 
affairs,  are  often  inconsistent  with  themselves ;  and  hence,  what 
such  may  have  said  on  one  occasion  is  not  always  a  sufficient 
answer  to  what  may  be  said  by  the  same  on  another  occasion, 
though  directly  in  conflict  with  it.  In  this  case,  however,  you 
rely  entirely  upon  this  mode  of  reasoning,  and  rest  yourself 
satisfied  by  saying  that  the  positions  of  the  book  are  "fully 
answered"  by  myself  in  a  speech  made  by  me  in  the  Georgia 
Secession  Convention,  in  1861,  which  speech  you  give  to  your 
readers  in  the  following  words : 


182  THE  REYIEWEES  KEVIEWED. 

"This  step  (of  secession)  once  taken,  can  never  be  recalled;  and  all 
the  baleful  and  withering  consequences  that  must  follow  will  rest  on  the 
convention  for  all  coming  time.  When  we  and  our  posterity  shall  see  our 
lovely  South  desolated  by  the  demon  of  war,  which  this  act  of  yours  will 
inevitably  invite  and  call  forth ;  when  our  green  fields  of  waving  harvest 
shall  be  trodden  down  by  the  murderous  soldiery  and  fiery  car  of  war 
sweeping  over  our  land ;  our  temples  of  justice  laid  in  ashes ;  all  the  hor 
rors  and  desolations  of  war  upon  us ;  who  but  this '  convention  will  be 
held  responsible  for  it  ?  and  who  but  him  who  shall  give  his  vote  for  this 
unwise  and  ill-timed  measure,  as  I  honestly  think  and  believe,  shall  be 
held  to  strict  account  for  this  suicidal  act  by  the  present  generation,  and 
probably  cursed  and  execrated  by  posterity  for  all  coming  time,  for  the 
wide  and  desolating  ruin  that  will  inevitably  follow  this  act  you  now  pro 
pose  to  perpetrate?  Pause,  I  entreat  you,  and  consider  for  a  moment 
what  reasons  you  can  give  that  will  even  satisfy  yourselves  in  calmer 
moments — what  reasons  you  can  give  to  your  fellow-sufferers  in  the 
calamity  that  it  will  bring  upon  us.  What  reasons  can  you  give  to  the 
nations  of  the  earth  to  justify  it?  They  will  be  the  calm  and  deliberate 
judges  in  the  case;  and  what  cause  or  one  overt  act  can  you  name  or 
point,  on  which  to  rest  the  plea  of  justification  ?  What  right  has  the 
North  assailed  ?  What  interest  of  the  South  has  been  invaded  ?  What 
justice  has  been  denied  ?  and  what  claim  founded  in  justice  and  right  has 
been  withheld  ?  Can  either  of  you  to-day  name  one  governmental  act  of 
wrong,  deliberately  and  purposely  done  by  the  Government  of  Washing 
ton,  of  which  the  South  has  a  right  to  complain  ?  I  challenge  the  answer. 
While,  on  the  other  hand,  let  me  show  the  facts  (and  believe  me,  gentle 
men,  I  am  not  here  the  advocate  of  the  North;  but  I  am  here  the  friend, 
the  firm  friend  and  lover  of  the  South  and  her  institutions,  and  for  this 
reason  I  speak  thus  plainly  and  faithfully  for  yours,  mine,  and  every  other 
man's  interest,  the  words  of  truth  and  soberness)  of  which  I  wish  you  to 
judge,  and  I  will  only  state  facts  which  are  clear  and  undeniable,  and 
which  now  stand  as  records  authentic  in  the  history  of  our  country. 
When  we  of  the  South  demanded  the  slave  trade,  or  the  importation  of 
Africans  for  the  cultivation  of  our  lands,  did  they  not  yield  the  right  for 
twenty  years  ?  When  we  asked  a  three-fifths  representation  in  Congress 
for  our  slaves,  was  it  not  granted  ?  When  we  asked  and  demanded  the 
return  of  any  fugitive  from  justice,  or  the  recovery  of  those  persons  owing 
labor  or  allegiance,  was  it  not  incorporated  in  the  Constitution,  and  again 
ratified  and  strengthened  by  the  fugitive  slave  law  of  1850  ?  But  do  you 
reply  that  in  many  instances  they  have  violated  this  compact,  and  have 
not  been  faithful  to  their  engagements  ?  As  individual  and  local  commu 
nities,  they  may  have  done  so ;  but  not  by  the  sanction  of  Government, 
for  that  has  always  been  true  to  Southern  interests.  Again,  gentlemen, 
look  at  another  act;  when  we  have  asked  that  more  territory  should  be 


MR.   STEPHENS  ON  THE  FORGED  SPEECH.  183 

added,  that  we  might  spread  the  institution  of  slavery,  have  they  not 
yielded  to  your  demands  in  giving  us  Louisiana,  Florida,  and  Texas,  out 
of  which  four  States  have  been  carved,  and  ample  territory  for  four  more 
to  be  added  in  due  time ;  if  you,  by  this  unwise  and  impolitic  act  do  not 
destroy  this  hope,  and,  perhaps,  by  it  lose  all,  and  have  your  last  slave 
wrenched  from  you  by  stern  military  rule,  as  South  America  and  Mexico 
were ;  or  by  the  vindictive  decree  of  a  universal  emancipation,  which  may  rea 
sonably  le  expected  to  follow  ? 

"Pause  now  while  you  can,  gentlemen,  and  contemplate  carefully  and 
candidly  these  important  items.  Look  at  another  necessary  branch  of 
government,  and  learn  from  stern  statistical  facts  how  matters  stand  in 
that  department.  I  mean  the  mail  and  post-office  privileges  that  we  now 
enjoy  under  the  General  Government  as  it  has  been  for  years  past.  The 
expense  for  the  transportation  of  the  mail  in  free  States  was,  by  the  report 
of  the  Postmaster-General  for  the  year  1860,  a  little  over  $13,000,000, 
while  the  income  was  $19,000,000.  But  in  the  slave  States  the  transpor 
tation  of  the  mail  was  $14,716,000,  while  the  revenue  from  the  same 
was  $8,001,026,  leaving  a  deficit  of  $6,704,974,  to  be  supplied  by  the  North 
for  our  accommodation,  and  without  it  we  must  have  been  entirely  cut  off 
from  this  most  essential  branch  of  Government. 

"Leaving  out  of  view,  for  the  present,  the  countless  millions  of  dollars 
you  must  spend  in  a  war  with  the  North,  with  tens  of  thousands  of  your 
sons  and  brothers  slain  in  battle,  and  offered  up  as  sacrifices  upon  the 
altar  of  your  ambition — and  what  for,  we  ask  again  ?  Is  it  for  the  over 
throw  of  the  American  Government,  established  by  our  common  ancestry, 
cemented  and  built  up  by  their  sweat  and  blood,  and  founded  on  the 
broad  principles  of  Right,  Justice,  and  Humanity?  And,  as  such,  I  must 
declare  here,  as  I  have  done  before,  and  which  has  been  repeated  by  the 
wisest  and  greatest  of  statesmen  and  patriots  in  this  and  other  lands,  that 
it  is  the  best  and  freest  Government — the  most  equal  in  its  rights,  the 
most  just  in  its  decisions,  the  most  lenient  in  its  measures,  and  the  most 
aspiring  in  its  principles,  to  elevate  the  race  of  men,  that  the  sun  of  heaven 
ever  shone  upon.  Now,  for  you  to  attempt  to  overthrow  such  a  Govern 
ment  as  this,  under  which  we  have  lived  for  more  than  three-quarters  of 
a  century — in  which  we  have  gained  our  wealth,  our  standing  as  a  nation, 
our  domestic  safety  while  the  elements  of  peril  are  around  us,  with  peace 
and  tranquillity,  accompanied  with  unbounded  prosperity  and  rights  un- 
assailed — is  the  height  of  madness,  folly,  and  wickedness,  to  which  I  can 
neither  lend  my  sanction  nor  my  vote." 

Now,  it  is  due  to  you  and  your  readers,  as  well  as  myself, 
that  I  should  make  it  distinctly  and  specially  known  to  you 
and  to  them,  as  I  hereby  do,  that  I  never  made  any  such 
speech  as  that  quoted  by  you,  either  in  that  Convention  or 


184  THE  REVIEWERS  KEVIEWED. 

anywhere  else.  It  is  forgery  or  gross  fabrication  from  begin 
ning  to  end. 

You  have,  perhaps,  been  unwittingly  drawn  into  a  mistake 
in  this  matter,  as  thousands  of  others  have  been  imposed  on  in 
like  matters  pertaining  to  the  war,  as  well  as  the  true  nature 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  under  the  Federal 
Constitution,  by  taking  for  granted,  and  accepting  as  true,  what 
you  and  they  have  received  from  others,  without  any  examina 
tion,  each  for  himself,  into  the  truth  of  matters  so  surrepti 
tiously  served  up  and  presented  to  public  credulity.  This 
speech,  so  attributed  to  me,  was  most  flagitiously  gotten  up, 
and  wickedly  circulated  by  the  perpetrators  of  the  fraud, 
throughout  the  Northern  States  as  a  Republican  campaign 
document  in  1864,  to  mislead,  as  perhaps  it  did,  thousands  of 
voters  in  causing  them  to  sustain  those  in  power  at  Washing 
ton,  who  were  then  waging  the  war  under  the  specious  pretence 
w&&  false  cry  of  preserving  the  Union  "with  all  the  dignity, 
equality,  and  rights  of  the  several  States  unimpaired,"  and 
which  they  never  would  have  done  if  they  had  fully  understood 
the  real  purposes,  aims,  and  objects  of  the  war  on  the  part  of 
those  who  were  thus  fraudulently  misleading  them,  or  of  its 
ultimate  results  and  consequences  upon  their  own  liberties,  as 
well  as  those  of  the  peoples  of  the  Southern  States. 

You  are,  perhaps,  the  more  excusable  for  falling  into  this 
great  error  from  the  fact  that  this  forged  speech  has  actually 
found  its  way  into  many  of  the  so-called  histories  of  the  war, 
even  in  those  of  the  character  of  Mr.  Lossing's  celebrated  work, 
and  that  of  the  learned  Dr.  Draper.  It  is  upon  just  such  unre 
liable  data  and  false  dicta,  however,  you  will  please  allow  me  to 
say,  that  all  those  so-called  histories  have  been  compiled,  which 
attempt  to  justify  the  subjugation  of  the  Southern  States  by  the 
Northern  States.  When  you  yourself  are  better  informed,  per 
haps,  you  may  see  the  propriety  of  modifying  your  expression 
about  Southern  leaders.  You  will  at  least  see  that  they  are  not 
so  "forgetful "  of  "  records  "  as  you  now  imagine.  They  recol 
lect  not  only  " their  own  records"  but  the  records  of  others. 
You  will  also  find  that  nothing  is  more  characteristic  of  them 
than  their  habit  of  not  relying  upon  false  records  either  in  the 


MR.   STEPHENS  GIST  THE  FORGED  SPEECH.  185 

assertion  of  their  rights  or  for  the  justification  of  their  acts. 
They  remember,  too,  something  more  "of  the  ante-bellum 
period  than  that  there  were  Abolitionists  in  the  North."  They 
have  a  lively  recollection  not  only  of  the  fact  that  there  were 
Revolutionists  there  bearing  the  cognomen  of  Abolitionists,  but 
also  of  the  fact  that  these  Revolutionists  got  control  of  the 
Legislatures  of  a  majority  of  the  Northern  States ;  which  Legis 
latures,  under  their  factious  control  and  disloyal  machinations, 
openly  repudiated  that  clause  in  the  Federal  Constitution  with 
out  which  it  is  well  known  that  Compact  would  never  have 
been  entered  into.  They  know  full  well  that  the  records — the 
true  and  imperishable  records — which  constitute  the  basis  of 
every  true  history  of  this  country  established  the  fact,  beyond 
the  power  of  successful  assault,  that  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  is  a  government  "of  States  and  for  /States." 
Moreover,  that  the  Constitution  is  a  Compact  between  States, 
and  that  this  Compact  was  wantonly  and  avowedly  broken  by 
these  Northern  States  under  the  lead  of  these  same  Revolution 
ists,  whose  aims  and  objects  were  and  are  Consolidation  and 
Empire !  It  is  upon  the  genuine  and  unmutilated  records  of 
the  country  Southern  men  stand,  and  with  full  confidence 
appeal  to  the  enlightened  judgment  of  mankind,  now  and  for 
ever,  for  the  complete  justification  of  their  course  and  the 
righteousness  of  their  cause.  These  records  are  exhibited  in 
the  volumes  referred  to,  and  the  world  is  challenged,  either  to 
deny  their  authenticity  or  gainsay  the  conclusions  therein  drawn 
from  them.  Until  one  or  the  other,  or  both,  of  these  is  success 
fully  done,  this  justification  must  be  acknowledged  to  be  com 
plete  for  all  time  to  come. 

If  you  had  carefully  studied  the  work  you  were  reviewing, 
you  wTould  have  seen  that  this  very  speech  quoted  by  you,  as  a 
part  of  my  "honorable  record"  is  noticed  in  volume  1st,  page 
23,  and  there  exposed  as  &  forgery.  On  page  305,  volume  2d, 
you  would  also  have  seen  what  was  really  and  in  truth  said  by 
me  in  the  Georgia  Convention  upon  the  subject  of  secession. 
That  speech  is  the  true  record  in  this  matter,  which  I  neither 
forget  nor  ignore,  and  which  it  is  proper  your  readers  should 
see,  and  compare  with  the  false  one  now  in  their  hands.  Its 


186  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

leading  points  on  the  subject  you  essayed  to  quote  me  upon, 
as  published  in  the  papers  of  the  day,  are  set  forth  in  these 
words : 

"MR.  PRESIDENT  :  It  is  well  known  that  my  judgment  is  against  Seces 
sion  for  existing  causes.  I  have  not  lost  hope  of  securing  our  rights  in 
the  Union  and  under  the  Constitution.  My  judgment  on  this  point  is  as 
unshaken  as  it  was  when  the  Convention  was  called.  I  do  not  now  intend 
to  go  into  any  arguments  on  the  subject.  No  good  could  be  effected  by 
it.  That  was  fully  considered  in  the  late  canvass ;  and  I  doubt  not  every 
delegate's  mind  is  made  up  on  the  question.  I  have  thought,  and  still 
think,  that  we  should  not  take  this  extreme  step  before  some  positive 
aggression  upon  our  rights  by  the  General  Government,  which  may  never 
occur;  or  until  we  fail,  after  effort  made,  to  get  a  faithful  performance  of 
their  Constitutional  obligations,  on  the  part  of  those  Confederate  States 
which  now  stand  so  derelict  in  their  plighted  faith.  I  have  been,  and  am 
still,  opposed  to  Secession  as  a  remedy  against  anticipated  aggressions  on 
the  part  of  the  Federal  Executive,  or  Congress.  I  have  held,  and  do  now 
hold,  that  the  point  of  resistance  should  be  the  point  of  aggression. 

u  Pardon  me,  Mr.  President,  for  trespassing  on  your  time  but  for  a 
moment  longer.  I  have  ever  believed,  and  do  now  believe,  that  it  is  to 
the  interest  of  all  the  States  to  be  and  remain  united  under  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States,  with  a  faithful  performance  by  each  of  all  its 
Constitutional  obligations.  If  the  Union  could  be  maintained  on  this 
basis,  and  on  these  principles,  I  think  it  would  be  the  best  for  the  security, 
the  liberty,  happiness,  and  common  prosperity  of  all.  I  do  further  feel 
confident,  if  Georgia  would  now  stand  firm,  and  unite  with  the  "Border 
States,"  as  they  are  called,  in  an  effort  to  obtain  a  redress  of  these  griev 
ances  on  the  part  of  some  of  their  Northern  Confederates,  whereof  they 
have  such  just  cause  to  complain,  that  complete  success  would  attend  their 
efforts;  our  just  and  reasonable  demands  would  be  granted.  In  this  opin 
ion  I  may  be  mistaken ;  but  I  feel  almost  as  confident  of  it  as  I  do  of  my 
existence.  Hence,  if  upon  this  test  vote,  which  I  trust  will  be  made  upon 
the  motion  now  pending,  to  refer  both  the  propositions  before  us  to  a 
committee  of  twenty-one,  a  majority  shall  vote  to  commit  them,  then  I 
shall  do  all  I  can  to  perfect  the  plan  of  united  Southern  cooperation,  sub 
mitted  by  the  honorable  delegate  from  Jefferson,  and  put  it  in  such  a 
shape  as  will,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Convention,  best  secure  its  object. 
That  object,  as  I  understand  it,  does  not  look  to  Secession  by  the  sixteenth 
of  February,  or  by  the  fourth  of  March,  if  redress  should  not  be  obtained 
by  that  time.  In  my  opinion,  it  cannot  be  obtained  by  the  IGth  of  Febru 
ary,  or  even  by  the  4th  of  March.  But  by  the  16th  of  February  we  can 
see  whether  the  Border  States  and  other  non-Seceding  Southern  States 
will  respond  to  our  call  for  the  proposed  Congress  or  Convention  at 
Atlanta.  If  they  do,  as  I  trust  they  may,  then  that  body,  so  composed 


MR.  STEPHENS  ON  THE  FORGED  SPEECH.  187 

of  representatives,  or  delegates,  or  commissioners  as  contemplated,  from 
the  whole  of  the  Slaveholding  States,  could,  and  would,  I  doubt  not, 
adopt  either  our  plan  or  some  other,  which  would  fully  secure  our  rights 
with  ample  guarantees,  and  thus  preserve  and  maintain  the  ultimate  peace 
and  union  of  the  States.  Whatever  plan  of  peaceful  adjustment  might 
be  adopted  by  such  a  Congress,  I  feel  confident  would  be  acceded  to  by  the 
people  of  every  Northern  State.  This  would  not  be  done  in  a  month,  or 
two  months,  or  perhaps  short  of  twelve  months,  or  even  longer.  Time 
would  necessarily  have  to  be  allowed  for  a  consideration  of  the  questions 
submitted  to  the  people  of  the  Northern  States,  and  for  their  deliberate 
action  on  them  in  view  of  all  their  interests,  present  and  future.  How 
long  a  time  should  be  allowed,  would  be  a  proper  question  for  that  Con 
gress  to  determine.  Meanwhile,  this  Convention  could  continue  its  exist 
ence  by  adjourning  over  to  hear  and  decide  upon  the  ultimate  result  of 
this  patriotic  effort. 

"My  judgment,  as  is  well  known,  is  against  the  policy  of  immediate 
Secession  for  any  existing  causes.  It  cannot  receive  the  sanction  of  my 
vote;  but  if  the  judgment  of  a  majority  of  this  Convention,  embodying, 
as  it  does,  the  Sovereignty  of  Georgia,  be  against  mine ;  if  a  majority  of 
the  delegates  in  this  Convention  shall,  by  their  votes,  dissolve  the  Com 
pact  of  Union  which  has  connected  her  so  long  with  her  Confederate 
States,  and  to  which  I  have  been  so  ardently  attached,  and  have  made 
such  efforts  to  continue  and  perpetuate  upon  the  principles  on  which  it 
was  founded,  I  shall  bow  in  submission  to  that  decision." 

Your  readers,  as  well  as  yourself,  I  think  will  be  constrained, 
whether  reluctantly  or  not,  to  come  to  the  conclusion,  if  the 
positions  maintained  in  the  "two  volumes"  under  considera 
tion  are  to  be  "fully  answered"  or  can  be  "entirely  demol 
ished"  by  weapons  from  my  own  armory,  very  different  mate 
rials  from  any  thing  in  this  speech,  or  any  thing  really  said  by 
me  in  that  Convention  will  have  to  be  brought  forward  for  the 
purpose.  I  think,  also,  that  an  intelligent  public  in  this  day, 
as  well  as  in  all  future  days,  will  require  a  different  sort  of 
argument  than  any  thing  to  be  found  in  this  speech  to  upset 
those  positions  of  the  work  whereby  complete  justification  is  not 
only  claimed,  but  established,  for  what  the  Southern  States  did 
in  the  late  war  for  the  maintenance  of  the  great  principle  of 
the  Sovereign  night  of  Local  Self-Government  by  the  people 
of  the  several  States  of  this  continent,  and  which  lies  at  the 
foundation  of  the  whole  fabric  of  the  American  Federative 
System  for  the  establishment  and  perpetuation  of  Free  Institu 
tions  by  neighboring  States.  ALEXANDER  II.  STEPHENS. 


ARTICLE  IX. 

REPLY  OF  ME.  STEPHENS  TO  MR.  ATTORNEY-GENERAL  AKERMAW8 
DENUNCIATIONS  OF  THE  WORK. 

LIBERTY  HALL,  ) 

CRAWFORDVILLE,  GA.,  September  21,  1870.  \ 

To  the  Editor  of  the  Constitutionalist,  Augusta,  Georgia : 

DEAK  SIR: — You  will,  I  trust,  allow  me  the  use  of  your 
columns  to  take  such  notice  of  two  speeches  recently  made  by 
Hon.  Amos  T.  Akerman,  Attorney-General  of  the  United  States, 
as  I  think  due  to  myself,  due  to  him,  and  due  to  some,  at  least, 
of  the  very  grave  matters  referred  to  by  him  in  both. 

In  the  first  of  these  speeches,  made  at  Washington  City,  I 
am  directly  charged  and  accused  by  him  with  having  promul 
gated  doctrines  which  he  characterizes  as  "pernicious"  and 
which  he  says  "  must  oe  suppressed." 

In  the  other  of  these  speeches,  delivered  at  Atlanta,  Georgia, 
while  my  name  is  omitted ;  yet  his  official  denunications,  in 
like  spirit,  are  chiefly  directed  against  the  same  political  heresies, 
according  to  his  standard. 

These  dangerous  and  "pernicious  doctrines"  he  is  pleased 
to  say,  are  to  be  found  in  the  two  volumes  published  by  me 
upon  the  "  Late  "War  between  the  States." 

This  quasi  public  arraignment  by  the  Attorney-General  of 
the  United  States,  and  would-be,  perhaps,  "  Crown  Officer"  of 
a  firmly  established  Empire,  I  am  by  no  means  disposed  to 
evade ;  and,  therefore,  ask  the  favor,  through  the  medium  of  the 
Constitutionalist,  to  enter  a  traverse,  and  to  make  known  to 
him  and  to  the  world,  that  I  hold  myself  in  readiness  to  meet 
him,  or  any  body  else,  upon  the  merits  of  his  "  Bill  of  Informa 
tion,"  thus  filed ;  and  without  any  technical  exceptions  on  my 


ME.  STEPHENS'  REPLY  TO  ATTORNEY-GENERAL.      189 

part,  as  to  the  informality  in  which  it  has  been  brought  for 
ward.  * 

The  only  tribunal  I  desire  is  the  bar  of  an  enlightened  public 
opinion.  The  only  arena  I  wish,  for  the  settlement  of  all  the 
questions  involved,  is  the  forum  of  reason ;  where  no  weapons 
or  force  are  to  be  used,  but  the  power  of  truth  and  logic.  So 
armed  on  such  a  field,  I  do  not  shrink  from  the  fullest  investiga 
tion  of  all  matters  discussed  in  the  work,  to  which  he  alludes, 
nor  from  the  judgment  which  may  be  rendered  upon  them, 
after  such  a  hearing,  by  the  intelligent  and  unbiased  of  the  pres 
ent  or  future  generations. 

"What,  then,  are  the  errors  in  fact  or  argument  in  either  of 
the  volumes  referred  to,  which,  in  the  opinion  of  this  high  officer, 
are  so  dangerous  and  "pernicious  " — so  poisonous  and  death- 
producing  —  as  that  they  ought  not  to  be  thus  inquired  into,  or 
even  tolerated  by  discussion,  but  ought  to  be  summarily  and 
arbitrarily  "  suppressed?" 

1st.  Is  it  an  erroneous,  and  "pernicious  doctrine  "  to  main 
tain,  as  the  book  does,  that  the  United  States  constitute,  not  a 
single  Republic,  but  a  Federal  Republic ;  and  that  the  Union, 
about  which  Mr.  Attorney-General  says  so  much,  is  a  Federal 
Union — a  Union  of  separate,  distinct  States,  each  State  of  the 
Union  being  a  perfect  State,  as  known  in  Public  Law  ? 

2d.  Is  it  an  error  in  fact  or  doctrine  to  maintain,  as  the 
book  does,  that  these  States,  upon  entering  into  this  Union, 
were  recognized  by  themselves,  as  well  as  other  powers,  as 
separate,  independent,  Sovereign  States? 

3d.  Is  it  an  error  in  fact  or  doctrine  to  maintain,  as  the  book 
does,  that  the  Constitution  of  1T8T  is  the  basis  of  the  present 
Union ;  and  that  it  was  formed  ~by  the  States  in  their  sovereign 
character,  and  for  them  in  their  sovereign  character :  or,  in 
other  words,  that  it  is  a  Constitution  "  made  by  States  and  for 
States ;  "  and  that  the  Sovereignty  of  the  States  was  not  parted 
with  by  them  in  its  ratification  ? 

4th.  Is  it  an  error  in  fact  or  doctrine  to  maintain,  as  the 
book  does,  that  the  Federal  Government  is  entirely  Conventional 
in  its  character  —  that  it  was  created  by  the  States  solely  with 
a  view  to  the  better  regulation  of  their  inter-State  and  foreign 


190  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

affairs,  and  the  greater  security  of  their  perpetual  existence  as 
Sovereign  States,  by  their  mutual  pledge  and  guaranty  to  this 
end  —  and  that  the  Federal  Government,  so  created,  possesses 
no  inherent  powers  whatever  —  that  all  the  powers  it  rightfully 
holds,  or  can  rightfully  exercise,  are  held  from  the  States,  and 
from  them  by  delegation  only  ? 

5th.  Is  it  an  error  in  fact  or  doctrine  to  maintain,  as  the  book 
does,  that  all  the  powers,  so  held  by  this  Federal  or  Conven 
tional  Government,  are  particularly  enumerated  and  limited  in 
the  Constitution ;  and  that  the  exercise  of  any  power  outside 
of  these  limitations  is  nothing  but  a  usurpation,  and  should  be 
set  aside  by  the  courts  as  a  nullity  ? 

6th.  Is  it  an  error  in  fact  or  doctrine  to  maintain,  as  the 
book  does,  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  so  made, 
was  a  Compact  between  the  States  ratifying  it  —  the  States  being 
the  parties  to  it ;  and  that  it  is  binding  between  them,  as  all 
other  like  Compacts  by  the  laws  of  nations  ? 

7th.  Is  it  an  error  in  fact  or  doctrine  to  maintain,  as  the 
book  does,  that  all  delegated  powers  by  Sovereign  States  can, 
by  the  laws  of  nations,  be  rightfully  resumed  by  the  party  dele 
gating  them,  when  the  purposes  for  which  they  were  delegated 
are  not  attained  ? 

8th.  Is  it  an  error  in  fact  to  assert,  as  the  book  does,  that 
quite  a  number  of  the  Northern  States  of  the  Union,  before  the 
Secession  of  any  of  its  Southern  members,  (under  the  influence 
of  that  faithless  faction  which  now  rules  this  country  by  fraud 
and  usurpation,)  did  openly  and  confessedly  refuse  to  perform 
their  covenanted  obligations  under  a  clause  of  the  Constitution, 
without  which  that  Compact  never  would  have  been  agreed  to, 
or  the  Union,  under  it,  entered  into  by  the  Southern  States  ? 

9th.  Is  it  an  error  in  fact  to  state,  as  the  book  does,  that  the 
present  Chief-Justice  Chase  fully  admitted  this  breach  of  faith 
on  the  part  of  these  Northern  States ;  and  openly  declared  in 
the  Peace  Congress  in  February,  1861,  that  they  never  would 
perform  these  admitted  obligations  on  their  part  ? 

10th.  Is  it  an  error  in  fact  to  maintain,  as  the  book  does, 
that  no  one  of  the  Southern  States  which  seceded  or  attempted 
to  secede  from  the  Union,  because  of  this  breach  of  faith,  on  the 


MR.   STEPHENS'  REPLY  TO  ATTORNEY-GENERAL.      191 

part  of  their  Confederates,  was  ever  untrue  to  her  covenants  in 
the  Compact  of  Union  ? 

llth.  Is  it  an  error  in  fact  or  doctrine  to  maintain,  as  the 
book  does,  that  this  open  and  confessed  breach  of  faith  on  the 
part  of  their  Northern  Confederates,  according  to  the  laws  of  all 
nations,  whether  savage  or  civilized,  completely  absolved  the 
Southern  States  from  their  obligations  under  the  Compact,  and 
fully  justified  their  withdrawal  ? 

12th.  Is  it  an  error  in  fact  to  maintain,  as  the  book  does, 
that  the  Covenant-Constitution-breaking  States  did  afterwards 
hold,  that  the  Seceding  States  were  still  bound  to  perform  their 
part  of  the  Compact,  notwithstanding  their  own  acknowledged 
breach  of  faith,  and  that  they  went  to  war  against  them  to  com 
pel  them  to  remain  in  the  Union,  and  discharge  their  obliga 
tions  under  the  Constitution  ? 

13th.  Is  it  an  error  in  fact  or  doctrine,  to  maintain,  as  the 
book  does,  that  the  war,  thus  inaugurated,  was  a  "  War  between 
States,"  and  in  no  proper  or  just  sense  a  Rebellion  or  Civil 
War? 

14th.  Is  it  an  error  in  fact  to  maintain,  as  the  book  does, 
that  the  only  pretext  on  the  part  of  the  Northern  States,  for 
waging  this  war,  thus  inaugurated  between  the  States,  was  "  the 
preservation  of  the  Union  of  the  States,  with  all  the  dignity, 
equality,  and  rights  of  the  several  States  unimpaired  ? " 

15th.  Is  it  an  error  in  fact  to  maintain,  as  the  book  does,  that 
wiien  the  Seceding  States  abandoned  their  struggle  for  a  sepa 
ration,  and  agreed  to  the  terms  of  capitulation,  wiiich  was  sub 
stantially  an  acquiescence,  so  far  as  armed  resistance  was  con 
cerned,  in  the  declaration  upon  which  the  war  was  waged  against 
them;  the  other  States,  the  Covenant-breakers  themselves  — 
under  the  rule  of  the  same  revolutionary  faction  —  after  the 
sacrifice  of  hundred  of  thousands  of  lives  and  thousands  of  mil 
lions  of  dollars,  changed  their  position  in  Congress,  and  said 
that  they  could  not  safely  permit  that  to  be  done  for  which  they 
had  waged  the  war  —  that  they  could  not  safely  allow  a  restora 
tion  of  the  Union  of  the  States  under  tlie  Constitution  for  which 
they  had  shed  so  much  blood  and  expended  so  much  treasure ! 
But  that  these  acquiescing  States  should  be  shorn  of  their 


192  THE  KEVIEWERS  EEVIEWED. 

"  dignity,  equality  and  rights  "  by  a  process  of  "  Reconstruction  " 
according  to  their  liking,  though  outside  of  the  Constitution, 
before  being  allowed  representation  in  the  Congress  of  the 
States  ? 

16th.  Is  it  an  error  in  fact  or  doctrine,  on  the  review  of  this 
conduct,  to  ask,  as  the  book  does,  "  Is  there  to  be  found  in  the 
annals  of  mankind  a  parallel  of  such  unblushing,  double-faced, 
insolent,  and  infamous  iniquity  \ " 

These,  Mr.  Editor,  are  a  few  of  the  positions  and  doctrines 
maintained  in  the  two  volumes  referred  to  by  Mr.  Attorney- 
General  ;  and  if  they,  founded,  as  they  are,  upon  indisputable 
facts,  set  forth  irrefutable  truths,  to  what  or  whom,  let  me  ask 
him  and  the  world,  is  their  promulgation  either  dangerous  or 
"pernicious  ?"  Is  it  to  the  cause  of  public  liberty,  or  to  the 
true  friends  of  the  institutions  of  our  ancestors,  or  only  to  the 
policy  and  secret  designs  of  those  who  are  aiming  at  their  over 
throw  and  subversion  ? 

Mr.  Attorney-General  in  his  Bill  of  Information  makes  very 
few  distinct  specifications  touching  the  "pernicious  "  doctrines 
of  the  two  volumes  which,  he  says,  "  'must  l>e  suppressed"  Two 
only  of  these  are  deemed  worthy  of  notice  at  this  time. 

The  first  is,  that  I  have  asserted  that  "  the  Keconstruction 
measures  were  monstrous,  and  pronounced  that  all  the  Govern 
ment  had  done  for  four  years  was  monstrous,  and  threatened 
the  liberties  of  the  people.1' 

In  answer  to  this  I  have  simply  to  say,  that  if  the  foregoing 
positions  maintained  in  the  book  are  unassailable,  is  it  not  un 
deniably  true  that  the  whole  of  "  these  Reconstruction  meas 
ures,"  with  all  their  concomitants,  are  not  only  monstrous  out- 
rages,  but  most  deadly  blows  directed  at  the  very  vitals  of  the 
Constitution,  as  well  as  the  liberties  of  the  people  ? 

The  other  of  these  specifications  is,  that  I  have  attempted 
to  show  that  "  Marshall,"  and  others  named  by  him,  "  were 
wrong,  and  that  Calhoun  was  right "  in  his  views  of  the  Consti 
tution. 

In  answer  to  this  charge  it  is  only  necessary  to  refer  to  the 
book  itself,  which  Mr.  Attorney-General  may  very  well  wish  to 
have  suppressed,  if  for  no  other  object  than  to  shield  himself 


ME.   STEPHENS'  EEPLY  TO  ATTORNEY-GENERAL.      193 

from  the  exposure  of  having  made  a  very  unfair  statement,  not 
to  say  palpable  misrepresentation.  In  the  book  no  opinion  of 
Marshall  is  assailed ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  some  of  the  most 
important  positions  in  it  —  those  doubtless  deemed  by  the 
would-be  "Crown  Officer,"  most  "pernicious"  to  his  own 
views,  aims,  and  objects  —  are  not  only  fortified  but  incontest- 
ably  established  by  the  authority  of  this  eminent  Chief-Justice 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

It  was  he  who  announced  from  the  Bench  of  that  Court  the 
most  "pernicious  doctrine,"  that  the  States  composing  this 
Union  at  the  time,  formed  their  present  Constitution  as  Sover 
eign  States. 

It  was  he  who  held  and  proclaimed  from  the  same  Bench,  that 
all  the  Legislative  powers  of  the  Congress  of  States,  under  the 
Constitution,  depended  upon  the  will  of  a  majority  of  the  States. 

It  was  he  who  held  in  the  Convention  of  Virginia  that  rati 
fied  the  Constitution,  that  the  powers  conferred  by  that  instru 
ment  could  be  rightly  resumed  by  those  who  conferred  them. 

This,  perhaps,  is  the  most  "pernicious  "  of  all  the  doctrines 
set  forth  in  the  book,  which  Mr.  Attorney-General  is  so  anxious 
to  have  " suppressed"  And  perhaps,  moreover,  the  true  solu 
tion  of  his  unqualified  denunciation  of  the  whole  work  is,  that 
the  array  of  facts  presented  in  the  two  volumes,  and  the  irresist 
ible  conclusions  established  by  them,  are  so  "pernicious  "  to  the 
schemes  of  the  would-be  "  Crown  Officer "  and  his  co-workers 
in  the  erection  of  a  Centralized  Empire  over  the  ruins  of  the 
principles  of  that  wonderful  Federal  Union,  established  by  the 
"  Fathers,"  that  they  cannot  be  tolerated  by  them ;  and  hence 
the  official  mandate,  that  the  doctrines  therein  set  forth  "  must 
~be  suppressed!"  Potent  words  these,  and  of  most  ominous 
significance,  coming  from  the  quarter  they  do !  They  express 
the  unmistakable  language  of  tyrannical  men  in  power  in  all 
ages  and  countries,  when  they  feel  the  force  of  truths  which  are 
indeed  dangerous  and  most  "pernicious "  to  their  own  guilty 
acts  of  usurpation  upon  the  rights  of  States,  as  well  as  the 
liberties  of  outraged  peoples !  This  language  from  the  present 
Attorney-General  smacks  strongly  of  like  Cabinet  anathemas 
of  the  Nationalists,  Centralists,  and  Coiisolidationists  of  this 
13 


194  THE  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

country  in  1798-'99  which  ended  in  the  ever-memorable  Alien 
and  Sedition  " laws,  so  catted"  of  that  period. 

The  doctrine  of  the  advocates  of  Constitutional  Liberty  under 
our  Federative  System  at  that  day,  as  promulgated,  not  by  Mr. 
Calhoun,  as  Mr.  Attorney-General  most  adroitly  attempts  to 
make  the  people  believe,  but  by  Mr.  Jefferson  and  his  associates, 
was,  that  these  acts  of  usurpation  Were  not  laws  but  nullities. 

The  doctrines  inculated  in  the  two  volumes  referred  to,  Mr. 
Attorney-General  well  knows,  are  the  doctrines  of  Mr.  Jefferson 
—  the  great  apostle  of  the  American  Federative  system,  for  the 
maintenance  and  preservation  of  free  institutions  by  neighbor 
ing  States.  They  are  the  doctrines  which  in  lY98-'99  were,  as 
now,  considered  exceedingly  "pernicious  "  to  their  schemes  by 
all  the  enemies  of  these  institutions.  By  the  earnest  promul 
gation  of  these  doctrines,  and  a  firm  maintenance  of  them,  at 
the  polls,  by  the  peoples  of  the  several  States  of  this  Union,  the 
rights  of  the  States,  as  well  as  their  own,  were  rescued  from  the 
hands  of  usurpers  at  that  time ;  and  on  a  like  promulgation  and 
maintenance  of  the  same  doctrines  at  this  time,  rests  the  only 
sure  hope  of  the  future  rescue  and  preservation  of  the  same 
rights  and  liberties  from  the  hands  of  the  usurpers  who  now 
bear  sway.  One  of  the  most  important  as  well  as  saving  of  the 
principles  of  these  doctrines  is  that  no  danger  need  ever  be 
feared  in  a  free  country  from  any  error  of  opinion  or  doctrine 
however  great,  "  where  reason  is  left  free  to  combat  it." 

This  Cabinet  ukase  of  Mr.  Attorney-General  shows  nothing 
more  clearly  than  the  power  of  the  truths  promulgated  in  the 
two  volumes  thus  denounced.  He  and  his  associates  know  and 
feel,  that,  by  nothing  short  of  a  suppression  of  these  truths  di 
rectly  or  indirectly,  and  the  obliteration,  if  possible,  of  all  the 
great  facts  of  our  history,  can  they  bring  the  public  mind  to 
receive  the  doctrine  attempted  to  be  instilled  by  him  in  his 
Atlanta  speech ;  which  amounts  to  this :  that  the  States  of  this 
Union  have  no  higher  position  in  the  scale  of  existence  than 
mere  legal  corporations. 

Shades  of  Ames,  Samuel  Adams,  Parsons,  Ellsworth,  Han 
cock,  Madison,  Hamilton,  Marshall,  Jackson,  Jefferson,  and 
Washington ! 


ME.   STEPHENS'  EEPLY  TO  ATTORNEY-GENERAL.      195 

I  will  not  say  that  such  a  •  doctrine  ought  to  be  suppressed ; 
but  with  all  the  respect  for  high  official  position  which  I  can 
command,  I  will  say,  that  the  Attorney-General  of  the  United 
States,  in  putting  forth  such  sentiments  ought  to  have  blushed ; 
if  not  for  his  own  reputation,  at  least,  from  a  proper  sense  of 
reverence  for  the  memories  of  the  illustrious  dead ! 

The  Union  of  these  States,  nothing  but  a  Union  of  a  sort 
of  corporations  to  be  fashioned,  moulded,  controlled,  and  shorn 
of  their  rights  by  and  at  the  will  of  the  Central  Government ! 

This  "  Confederacy  "  of  States,  as  Marshall  styled  it  on  the 
Bench  of  the  Supreme  Court  —  this  "  Confederated  Republic," 
as  Washington  styled  it  in  his  message  to  the  Senate — this 
"  Union  of  Sovereign  Members,"  as  Jackson  spoke  of  it  in  his 
Inaugural  Address,  according  to  the  teachings  of  the  present 
Attorney-General,  is  nothing  but  an  aggregation  of  corpora 
tions  !  Bare  creatures  of  municipal  law !  This,  in  substance, 
is  my  understanding  of  Ms  most  msidiously-mculc&tQd.  Im- 
perializing  doctrine. 

If  by  the  suppression  of  truth,  this  doctrine  can  be  established, 
then,  indeed,  will  be  consummated  that  most  lamentable  result 
which  Hamilton  thought  need  never  be  feared,  even  by  the 
most  vigilant  and  zealous  guardians  of  'popular  rights,  when  he 
declared  in  the  Convention  of  New  York,  which  ratified  the 
Constitution,  that  "  The  States  can  never  lose  their  Powers  till 
the  whole  people  of  America  are  roHbed  of  their  Liberties" 
Yours,  most  respectfully, 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 


AETICLE  X. 

I. — REPLY  OF  MR.  STEPHENS  TO   CRITICISM  or   THE   ATLANTA 
(GA.)  "NEW  ERA." 

LIBERTY  HALL,  ) 

CRAWFORDVILLE,  GA.,  Nov.  19,  1870.  ) 

To  the  Editor  of  the  New  Era,  Atlanta,  Ga. : 

DEAR  SIR  : — In  the  weekly  issue  of  your  paper  of  the  16th 
inst.  is  an  editorial  article  (the  same  having  also  appeared  in 
the  daily  issue  of  the  llth  inst.)  headed  "  Hon.  Alexander  H. 
Stephens  and  the  Constitutional  Right  of  Secession,"  which 
contains  matter  deserving  notice  from  me. 

This  article,  as  it  stands,  is  well  calculated  to  cause  those  of 
your  readers,  who  are  not  conversant  with  the  whole  subject, 
to  form  very  erroneous  conclusions  both  in  reference  to  myself, 
and  in  reference  to  what  you  are  pleased  to  consider  the  "  per 
nicious  "  doctrines  I  have  maintained  in  the  work  referred  to 
by  you  in  the  same  article,  in  relation  to  the  true  nature  and 
character  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

You  will,  therefore,  I  trust,  allow  me  the  use  of  your  col 
umns  to  set  the  issues  you  make  rightly  before  that  portion  of 
the  public  to  whom  your  article  was  addressed.  Be  assured, 
my  whole  object  in  this  communication,  as  well  as  whatever 
else  I  may  have  written  on  the  subject,  is  the  establishment  of 
truth  /  and  truth,  in  my  judgment,  is  pernicious  to  nothing  but 
error,  in  the  science  of  government,  as  well  as  in  all  other  mat 
ters  of  human 'investigation,  whether  political,  ethical,  or  mathe 
matical.  In  the  article  referred  to  you  say  : 

"  Mr.  Stephens  has  written  two  large  octavo  volumes,  entitled  '  The 
War  Between  the  States,'  in  vindication  of  the  doctrine  of  ultimate  Local 
Allegiance  or  State  Sovereignty,  and  consequently  in  justification  of  the 
act  of  Secession,  as  exercised  by  the  Georgia  Democracy  in  1861.  That 


BEPLY  TO   "NEW  ERA."  197 

Mr.  Stephens  should  have  written  such  a  book,  under  the  circumstances 
which  he  did,  having  for  its  object  the  advocacy  of  a  theory  which 
experience  has  demonstrated  to  be  not  only  impracticable,  but  likewise 
destructive  of  the  peace  of  society,  surprised  none  more  than  it  did  many 
of  his  earliest  and  best  friends  in  Georgia. 

"  The  book  can  do  no  possible  good.  Its  direct  tendency  is,  and  will 
be,  to  stimulate  a  reorganization  of  a  party  hostile  to  the  Government." 

To  this,  allow  me,  in  the  outset,  to  say  that  it  was  not  the 
object  of  the  work  alluded  to,  to  set  up,  advance,  or  advocate 
any  mere  theory  as  to  the  nature  or  character  of  the  Federal 
government  under  the  Union  of  the  States  as  established  by 
the  Constitution.  This  is  not  a  proper  subject  for  theory  or 
speculation  of  any  sort.  It  is  eminently  a  question  of  facts. 
My  object  was  simply  to  set  forth  truthfully  the  indisputable 
facts  of  history  upon  which  it  rests  ;  with  the  irresistible  con 
clusions  logically  flowing  from  them.  This  was  the  object  of 
the  work,  and  has  this  been  done,  should  be  the  only  inquiry 
of  a  mind  wedded  to  truth.  If  it  has,  why  should  any  one  of 
my  early  and  best  friends  in  Georgia,  or  elsewhere,  be  surprised 
at  my  course  ?  Is  there  any  thing  in  my  whole  life  which  could 
have  caused  them  to  expect  any  other  ?  If  it  has  not,  then  I 
grant  my  course  in  this  particular  ought  to  be  a  cause  of  sur 
prise  to  all  who  know  me,  and  what  I  have  adduced  as  facts 
ought  to  be  exposed  as  grave  errors  and  mischievous  imposi 
tions.  This  no  one  in  the  United  States  has  yet  attempted  or 
ventured  to  do,  so  far  as  I  am  aware.  The  real  question,  there 
fore,  is  not  whether  experience  has  demonstrated  any  "  theory  " 
of  mine  to  be  " impracticable"  but  whether  experience  has  de 
monstrated  that  the  Government,  as  it  was  made  and  instituted 
by  the  Fathers,-  was  "  not  only  impracticable  but  likewise  de 
structive  of  the  peace  of  society."  Is  it  true,  then,  that  the 
matchless  system  of  government  instituted  by  our  ancestors 
was  "  not  only  impracticable  but  destructive  of  the  peace  of  so 
ciety  ? "  This  is,  certainly,  your  position  if  the  facts  and  truths 
of  our  history  be  as  they  are  set  forth  in  the  book  referred  to, 
which  you  virtually  admit  by  not  venturing  to  gainsay  or  deny 
them.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  entertain  any  such  idea  of  the 
majestic  and  renowned  workmanship  of  the  statesmen  of  1787, 
who  framed  the  present  Constitution  for  the  government  of  the 


198    *  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

several  sovereign  States,  which  might  enter  into  a  union  under 
it,  with  a  view  to  the  establishment  of  justice,  the  preservation 
of  domestic  tranquility,  and  the  promotion  of  their  joint  gen 
eral  welfare,  as  well  as  for  the  security  of  the  blessings  of  lib 
erty  to  themselves  and  to  their  posterity. 

Of  this  novel  and  wonderful  frame-work  Lord  Brougham, 
in  his  Political  Philosophy,  has  well  said :  (Italics  mine.) 

"  It  is  not  at  all  a  refinement  that  a  Federal  Union  should  be  formed  ; 
that  is  the  natural  result  of  men's  joint  operations  in  a  very  rude  state  of 
society.  But  the  regulation  of  such  a  Union  upon  preestablished  princi 
ples,  the  formation  of  a  system  of  government  and  legislation  in  which 
the  different  subjects  shall  be  not  individuals,  but  States,  the  application  of 
legislative  principles  to  such  a  T)ody  of  States,  and  devising  means  for 
keeping  its  integrity  as  a  Federacy  while  the  rights  and  powers  of  the  in 
dividual  States  are  maintained  entire,  is  the  very  greatest  refinement  in 
social  policy  to  which  any  state  of  circumstances  has  ever  given  rise,  or  to 
which  any  age  has  ever  given  birth ! "  % .  • 

May  not  the  disturbance  "  of  the  peace  of  society "  to 
which  you  refer — (the  late  most  lamentable  war) — have  arisen 
rather  from  an  error,  on  the  part  of  those  who  inaugurated  it, 
as  to  the  true  nature  and  extent  of  the  powers  confided  to 
them  than  from  any  defect  in  the  frame- work  of  the  Govern 
ment  itself.  Nay,  is  not  this  demonstrated  in  the  book  ?  The 
great  question  discussed  in  the  "  two  large  octavo  volumes  "  is, 
who  was  in  the  right  and  who  was  in  the  wrong  in  this  recent 
terrible  conflict.  If  it  is  clearly  shown  therein,  that  the  re 
sponsibility  of  this  disturbance  "  of  the  peace  of  society  "  rests 
with  all  its  weight  upon  those  who  wrongfully  claimed  and  ex 
ercised  unauthorized  power,  then  experience  in  this  instance 
has  demonstrated  nothing  but  that  even  written  Constitutions 
are  not  always  proof  against  the  usurpations  of  rulers.  This 
experience  has  by  no  means  demonstrated  that  the  institutions 
of  our  Fathers  were  not  altogether  practicable,  wise,  just,  right, 
and  embodying  "the  very  greatest  refinement  in  social  policy" 
to  which  any  age  has  ever  given  birth ;  looking  to  the  best  in 
terest,  peace,  safety,  security,  liberty,  and  happiness  of  man 
kind. 

But  you  say  that  the  facts  and  truths  established  in  the  book 
(for  as  before  stated,  you  must  be  considered  as  admitting  them 


REPLY  TO   "NEW  ERA."  199 

to  be  correct,  as  you  do  not  assail  them)  will  have  a  a  direct 
tendency  "  "to  stimulate  a  reorganization  of  a  party  hostile  to 
the  Government."  * 

In  this  you  will  allow  me  to  say,  that  either  you  or  I  great 
ly  err  in  judgment.  The  direct  tendency  of  these  truths,  as 
was  and  is  one  of  the  objects  of  their  promulgation,  will  be  the 
reorganization  of  a  party  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  Govern 
ment,  animated  with  a  thorough  devotion  to  those  principles 
upon  which  it  was  founded  and  by  the  maintenance  of  which 
alone  its  incalculable  blessings  can  be  perpetuated.  The  ten 
dency  will  be  the  organization  of  a  party  hostile,  to  nothing  but 
those  principles  of  mal-administration  of  government — those 
gross  and  palpable  usurpations,  from  which  all  our  late  troubles 
with  their  ruinous  results  arose,  and  from  which,  if  not  aban 
doned,  like  troubles,  with  even  worse  results,  may  be  looked 
for  in  the  future.  The  Government  is  one  thing  and  the  ad 
ministration  of  it  quite  another.  No  system  of  Free  Represen 
tative  Government  can  be  long  continued  where  the  people  do 
not  understand  its  principles  and  cherish  a  patriotic  devotion  to 
them,  with  an  inflexible  virtue  enlisted  in  their  maintenance. 
The  direct  tendency  of  the  truths  presented  in  the  "two  vol 
umes  "  to  which  you  refer,  will  be  to  impart  the  requisite 
knowledge  of  our  wonderful  confederate  system,  and  at  the 
same  time  inspire  a  patriotic  admiration  of  the  'beauty  and 
grandeur  of  its  structure,  as  well  as  zeal  and  integrity  in  its 
support  and  perpetuation.  Individually,  I  have  ever  regarded 
it  the  wisest  and  best  system  of  government  for  neighboring 
States  ever  instituted  by  man.  ~No  one  ever  was  or  could  be 
more  devoted  to  its  principles  than  I  have  been  and  am.  With 
me  in  all  things  political,  this  devotion  controls  every  other 
consideration.  Now,  as  heretofore,  I  can  say  on  this  point : 

"  All  thoughts,  all  passions,  all  delights, 

Whatever  stirs  this  mortal  frame  ; 
All  are  but  ministers  of  love 
To  feed  this  sacred  flame." 

So  far,  therefore,  from  the  tendency  of  the  truths  promul 
gated  by  me,  as  to  the  nature  and  character  of  the  Government, 
being  to  stimulate  the  organization  of  a  party  hostile  to  it,  the 


200  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

tendency  will,  in  my  judgment,  be  directly  to  the  contrary ; 
that  is,  the  tendency  will  be,  through  an  enlightened  and  pa 
triotic  public  sentiment,  to  bring  the  administration  of  the  Gov 
ernment  back  from  its  present  usurpations,  and  restore  it  to  its 
true  pristine  principles  under  which  it  was  so  prosperously  and 
so  happily  conducted  for  nearly  three-quarters  of  a  century. 

So  much  by  way  of  reply  to  your  introductory  remarks.  I 
now  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  your  readers  to  that  part  of 
your  article  in  which  you  attempt  (it  seems  to  me)  to  break  the 
force  of  the  great  truths  of  our  history  as  set  forth  in  the  work, 
not  by  any  direct  attack  upon  them,  or  the  facts  upon  which 
they  rest,  but  by  giving  out  that  they  are  inconsistent  with 
what  I  had  maintained  on  a  former  occasion.  On  this  line  you 
say: 

"  That  Mr.  Stephens  should  have  thus  become  the  champion  of  the 
party  of  Destruction  is  most  remarkable.  It  clearly  implies  either  a  radi 
cal  change  in  his  political  views  since  I860,  or  it  raises  a  presumption 
against  his  sincerity.  The  latter  is  hardly  admissible.  We  have  too  high 
an  opinion  of  Mr.  Stephens  as  a  man,  to  charge  him  with  insincerity. 
And  yet  the  alternative  of  fickleness,  while  it  is  inevitable,  is  very  little 
less  complimentary.  His  calm  and  statesmanlike  speech  of  November 
14th,  1860,  delivered  before  the  Georgia  Legislature  at  Milledgeville,  and 
which  was  generally  copied  by  the  press  all  over  the  United  States,  is  in 
strange  contrast  with  the  pernicious  and  revolutionary  teachings  in  his 
book." 

You  go  on  further  to  say : 

"  In  that  speech  Mr.  Stephens  discusses  the  merits  of  Secession  in  the 
following  calm  and  powerful  language : 

"  '  The  first  question  that  presents  itself  is,  Shall  the  people  of  the  South 
secede  from  the  Union  in  consequence  of  the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln  to 
the  Presidency  of  the  United  States  ?  My  countrymen,  I  tell  you  frankly, 
candidly,  and  earnestly,  that  I  do  not  think  they  ought.  In  my  judg 
ment,  the  election  of  no  man,  constitutionally  chosen  to  that  high  office, 
is  sufficient  cause  for  any  State  to  separate  from  the  Union.  It  ought  to 
stand  by  and  aid  still  in  maintaining  the  Constitution  of  the  country.  To 
make  a  point  of  resistance  to  the  Government,  to  withdraw  from  it  be 
cause  a  man  has  been  constitutionally  elected,  puts  us  in  the  wrong.  We 
are  pledged  to  maintain  the  Constitution.  Many  of  us  have  sworn  to  sup 
port  it.  Can  we,  therefore,  for  the  mere  election  of  a  man  to  the  Presi 
dency — and  that,  too,  in  accordance  with  the  prescribed  form  of  the  Con 
stitution — make  a  point  of  resistance  to  the  Government  witliout  becoming 
the  breakers  of  that  sacred  instrument  ourselves  by  withdrawing  ourselves  from 
it  ?  Would  we  not  be  in  the  wrong  ?  Whatever  fate  is  to  befall  this 


REPLY  TO  "NEW  ERA."  201 

country,  let  it  never  be  laid  to  the  charge  of  the  people  of  the  South,  and 
especially  to  the  people  of  Georgia,  that  we  were  untrue  to  our  national  en 
gagements.  .  .  .  We  went  into  the  election  with  this  people.  The  result 
was  different  from  what  we  wished;  but  the  election  has  been  constitu 
tionally  held.  Were  we  to  make  a  point  of  resistance  to  the  Government, 
and  go  out  of  the  Union  on  that  account,  the  record  would  be  made  up 
hereafter  against  us.' 

"  We  have  italicized  the  words  in  the  above  to  which  attention  is  es 
pecially  directed.  It  will  be  observed  that  Mr.  Stephens  here  assumes 
that,  because  the  people  of  Georgia  stood  'pledged  to  maintain  the  Con 
stitution,'  therefore  they  ought  not  to  secede ;  and  that  they  could  not  do 
so  without  *  becoming  the  breakers  of  that  sacred  instrument.'  Where, 
then,  is  the  Constitutional  '  right '  of  Secession,  so  insidiously  taught  in 
'  The  War  Between  the  States  ? '  Where,  then,  is  the  infallible  truth  of  the 
proposition  that,  since  the  ultimate  allegiance  of  the  citizen  is  due  the 
State,  as  against  the  Federal  Government,  the  citizen  may  make  resistance 
to  the  General  Government,  under  the  sanction  of  State  authority,  without 
violating  or  '  breaking '  the  Federal  Constitution  ?  The  truth  is,  Mr.  Ste 
phens  of  1868  and  1870  reverses  Mr.  Stephens  of  1860  and  1861." 

Iii  response  to  this  part  of  your  article,  for  the  information 
of  your  readers,  it  is  proper  to  remind  you  that  you  have  only 
quoted,  not  exactly,  but  substantially  correct — (see  Constitu 
tional  Yiew,  2d  vol.,  page  280),  a  part  of  the  speech  to  which 
you  refer,  and  that  part  in  which  I  did  maintain  that  secession, 
in  my  judgment,  would  not  be  justified  even  in  the  exercise  of 
a  sovereign  not  "  constitutional "  right,  as  you  seem  to  suppose, 
upon  the  bare  election  to  the  office  of  President  of  any  man, 
however  inimical  he  might  be  to  the  principles  of  the  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States.  But  while  in  that  part  of  the 
speech  I  did  maintain  that  no  State",  in  my  judgment,  would  be 
justified  in  the  exercise  of  her  sovereign  right  in  withdrawing 
from  the  Union,  because  of  the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln  to  the 
Presidency,  yet  I  did  not  thereby  assume,  or  maintain  that  no 
State  could  rightfully  exercise  her  sovereign  powers  in  with 
drawing  from  the  Union  for  any  cause  whatever.  Far  indeed 
was  any  such  position  from  any  thing  said  in  that  speech. 

This  is  not  a  matter  of  disputation  about  words.  The  speech 
itself,  from  which  you  quoted,  settles  all  doubts  that  might  arise 
from  isolated  sentences  or  parts.  After  stating  most  earnestly 
and  distinctly,  that  I  did  not  consider  the  election  of  Mr.  Lin 
coln  a  sufficient  cause  to  justify  secession,  I  went  into  the  con- 


202  KEVIEWEKS  REVIEWED. 

sideration  of  other  causes,  which  were  of  a  different  character, 
and,  though  I  did  not  think  it  either  expedient,  or  wise,  or  po 
litic,  to  secede  for  any  of  them  under  the  circumstances  existing 
at  the  time,  yet  I  did  most  fully  declare  my  opinion  to  be,  that 
secession  for  these  causes  would  be  justified  if  Georgia  in  her 
sovereign  capacity  should  determine  to  exercise  her  sovereign 
right  to  withdraw.  The  justification  of  the  act,  however,  did 
not  render  the  exercise  of  the  power,  at  the  time  and  under  the 
circumstances,  either  judicious  or  expedient  in  my  judgment. 
Hence  my  earnest  appeal  in  that  speech  after  the  full  consider 
ation  of  all  the  causes  of  complaint,  as  well  those  which,  would 
justify  as  those  which  would  not,  against  the  exercise,  at  that 
time,  of  the  great  sovereign  right  of  secession  for  any  of  them. 
My  opposition  to  secession  for  those  other  causes  was  not  as  to 
the  right,  but  the  policy,  of  the  measure.  In  this  appeal,  among 
other  things,  I  said  what  follows  : 

, "  But  it  is  said  Mr.  Lincoln's  policy  and  principles  are  against  the 
Constitution,  and  that  if  he  carries  them  out  it  will  be  destructive  of  our 
rights.  Let  us  not  anticipate  the  threatened  evil.  If  he  violates  the  Con 
stitution,  then  will  come  our  time  to  act.  ...  I  do  not  anticipate  that  Mr. 
Lincoln  will  do  any  thing  to  jeopard  our  safety  or  security,  whatever  may 
be  his  spirit  to  do  it ;  for  he  is  bound  by  the  Constitutional  checks  which 
are  thrown  around  him,  which  at  this  time  render  him  powerless  to  do 
any  great  mischief. '  This  shows  the  wisdom  of  our  system.  The  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States  is  no  Emperor — no  Dictator.  He  is  clothed 
with  no  absolute  power. 

"  Now  upon  another  point,  and  that  the  most  difficult,  and  deserving 
your  most  serious  consideration,  I  will  speak.  What  is  the  course  which 
this  State  should  pursue  toward  those  Northern  States,  which,  by  their 
legislative  acts,  have  attempted  to  nullify  the  fugitive  slave  law  ? 

"  Northern  States,  on  entering  into  the  Federal  Compact,  pledged  to 
surrender  such  fugitives ;  and  it  is  in  disregard  of  their  Constitutional 
obligations  that  they  have  passed  laws  which  even  tend  to  hinder  or  in 
hibit  the  fulfilment  of  that  obligation.  They  have  violated  their  plighted 
faith.  What  ought  we  to  do  in  view  of  this?  That  is  the  question. 
What  is  to  be  done  ?  By  the  law  of  nations,  you  would  have  a  right  to  de 
mand  the  carrying  out  of  this  article  of  agreement,  and  I  do  not  see  that  it 
should  he  otherwise  with  respect  to  the  States  of  this  Union.  .  .  .  The  States 
of  this  Union  stand  upon  the  same  footing  with  foreign  nations  in  this  re 
spect. 

"  Now,  then,  my  recommendation  to  you  would  be  this  :  In  view  of  all 


EEPLY  TO  "NEW  ERA."  203 

these  questions  of  difficulty,  let  a  Convention  of  the  people  of  Georgia  be 
called,  to  which  they  all  may  be  referred.  Let  the  sovereignty  of  the  peo 
ple  speak.  Some  think  the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln  is  cause  sufficient  to 
dissolve  the  Union.  Some  think .  those  other  grievances  are  sufficient  to 
justify  the  same,  and  that  the  Legislature  has  power  thus  to  act,  and 
ought  thus  to  act.-  I  have  no  hesitancy  in  saying  that  the  Legislature  is 
not  the  proper  body  to  sever  our  Federal  relations,  if  that  necessity  should 
arise.  ...  I  do  think,  therefore,  that  it  would  be  best,  before  going  to 
extreme  measures  with  our  Confederate  States,  to  make  the  presentation  of 
our  demands,  to  appeal  to  their  reason  and  judgment  to  give  us  our 
rights.  .  .  .  At  least,  let  these  offending  and  derelict  States  know  what  your 
grievances  are,  and  if  they  refuse,  as  I  said,  to  give  us  our  rights  under 
the  Constitution,  I  should  be.  willing,  as  a  last  resort,  to  sever  our  ties  with 
them. 

"My  opinion  is,  that  if  this  course  be  pursued,  and  they  are  informed 
of  the  consequences  of  refusal,  these  States  will  recede,  will  repeal  their 
nullifying  acts ;  "but  if  they  should  not,  then  let  the  consequences  le  with  them, 
and  the  responsibility  of  the  consequences  rest  with  them." 

From  these  extracts  (parts  of  which  I  have  italicized)  it 
most  clearly  appears  that  at  the  very  time  I  urged  that  the  bare 
election  of  any  man  to  the  Presidency,  however  inimical  his 
principles  might  be  to  the  Constitution,  was  not,  in  my  judg 
ment,  a  sufficient  cause  to  justify  the  withdrawal  of  a  State  from 
the  Union ;  I  also  fully  admitted  that  for  other  causes,  and 
other  causes  then  existing,  if  not  removed,  the  Southern  States 
would  be  fully  justified  in  withdrawing,  if  they  should  so  de 
termine  to  do  in'  their  sovereign  capacity.  These  causes,  as  is 
well  known,  were  not  removed.  It  was  for  these  causes  the 
Southern  States  did  secede  or  attempt  to  secede. 

When  I  maintained  in  that  part  of  the  speech,  which  you 
quoted,  that  because  the  State  of  Georgia  "  was  pledged  to  sup 
port  the  Constitution,"  she,  therefore,  in  my  judgment,  ought 
not  to  secede  on  account  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  election,  or  in  antici 
pation  merely  of  an  act  of  aggression  on  his  part,  I  did  not 
thereby  assume  or  assert  that  she  could  not,  in  my  judgment, 
rightfully  secede  for  the  other  causes.  On  the  contrary,  it  is 
clearly  stated,  that  it  would  be  ner  sovereign  right  to  do  so  if 
she  saw  fit.  It  is '  true  my  judgment  against  the  policy  of  ex 
ercising  the  right  for  any  of  the  then  existing  causes,  without 
further  efforts  for  their  removal,  was  most  earnestly  urged ;  but 


204  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

the  right  to  withdraw  for  these  other  causes  was  not  questioned 
by  me  in  any  part  of  that  speech. 

.  Nay,  more,  I  expressly  declared  that  my  allegiance  would 
be  yielded  to  the  sovereignly-expressed  will  of  Georgia,  what 
ever  course  she  might  take. 

There  is  certainly  no  inconsistency  between  the  principles 
maintained  on  this  whole  subject  in  the  speech  alluded  to,  and 
those  maintained  in  the  "  two  volumes "  to  which  you  refer. 
!N"or  is  there  any  inconsistency  between  the  principles  of  this 
speech  in  whole  or  in  part ;  and  the  great  truths  set  forth  in 
those  volumes  touching  the  nature  and  character  of  the  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States,  which  you  deem  so  pernicious,  de 
structive,  and  revolutionary. 

Intelligent  readers  will,  I  think,  require  something  more  ef 
fective  to  break  the  force  of  these  truths  than  any  inconsistency 
to  be  found  between  them  and  the  principles  advocated  by  me 
in  1860 ;  and  they  will,  moreover,  require,  I  think,  something 
of  a  very  different  character  from  any  thing  to  be  found  in  the 
speech  made  by  me  to  which  you  have  alluded — taken  alto 
gether  as  it  should  be — to  show  that  "  Mr.  Stephens  of  1868  and 
1870  reverses  Mr.  Stephens  of  1860  and  1861." 

In  this  connection  you  will  allow  me  to  say,  that  whatever 
other  demerits  may  properly  be  laid  to  my  charge  during  a 
rather  long  political  course,  that  of  "  fickleness  "  on  these  ques 
tions  or  inconsistency  with  myself  on  the  subject  of  State  sov 
ereignty,  and  the  proper  relations  between  the  States  and  the 
Federal  Government  under  our  Union,  is  not  one  of  them.  I 
have  now  before  me  a  printed  copy  of  the  first  political  address 
ever  made  by  me.  It  was  delivered  in  this  village  on  the  4th  day 
of  July,  1834,  while  I  was  a  student  of  law,  and  before  my  ad 
mission  to  the  bar.  For  your  own  information,  as  well  as  that 
of  your  readers,  on  the  point  of  my  inconsistency  and  "  fickle 
ness,"  I  submit  for  your  and  their  consideration  the  following 
extracts,  which  are  not  less  pertinent  now  than  then : 

"  The  mind,  therefore,  at  our  annual  festivals  similar  to  the  present, 
should  not,  as  is  often  the  case,  be  permitted  to  be  filled  so  much  with  re 
joicings  over  the  past,  as  engaged  in  earnest  contemplations  of  the  future. 
The  warfare  of  Liberty  is  continual,  and  there  is  no  time  for  the  patriot 


REPLY  TO  "NEW  ERA."  205 

to  luxuriate  on  the  past,  or  feast  011  the  spoils  of  victory.  The  field  is 
never  to  be  quit — the  post  never  deserted — but  battle  succeeds  battle  in  a 
chain  as  various  and  as  endless  as  the  diversity  of  character  and  the  suc 
cession  of  generations. 

"  With  these  remarks  I  submit  to  your  attention,  briefly,  the  consider 
ation  of  a  subject  which  I  deem  not  as  inappropriate  to  the  object  of  our 
assembling ;  one  in  which  we  all,  as  the  friends  of  Liberty  in  general,  and 
particularly  as  citizens  of  the  United  States,  are  deeply  interested,  and 
one  which,  in  my  opinion,  involves  principles  pregnant  with  as  momen 
tous  consequences  as  any  which  have  ever  agitated  the  public  mind  of  the 
American  people.  I  allude  to  the  extent  of  the  powers  of  the  Federal 
Government,  or  the  true  relation  between  the  Federal  and  State  Govern 
ments.  There  are  those  among  us  who  contend  for  the  ultimate  suprema 
cy  of  the  former,  while  others  for  that  of  the  latter.  The  struggle  is  one 
for  power  on  one  side,  and  right  on  the  other.  .  .  .  Most  essential,  then, 
to  its  preservation  in  its  primitive  purity,  should  the  principles  of  the 
Federal  compact  be  thoroughly  examined,  and  clearly  understood  by 
every  one. 

"  That  I  may  be  plain  in  establishing  these  important  assumptions,  I  lay 
it  down  as  an  undeniable  truth,  this  power  was  not  vested  in  Congress  at 
the  first  union  of  these  States  which  resulted  in  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence,  nor  during  the  time  which  intervened  between  that  period  and 
the  adoption  of  the  articles  of  the  Confederation.  I  lay  it  down  also  as 
a  truth,  that  it  was  not  conferred  by  the  articles  of  the  Confederation. 
Thus  far  my  premises  must  be  admitted  by  all,  for  the  first  article  of  the 
Confederation  expressly  declares  the  sovereignty  or  supremacy  of  the 
States  severally.  I  proceed,  then,  likewise  to  assert  that  this  Supreme 
Power  is  not  conferred  by  the  present  Constitution.  "Were  this  also  ad 
mitted,  there  would  be  an  end  to  the  discussion.  But  here  the  issue  is 
joined.  Then  to  the  proof.  And  in  the  first  place,  if  the  Constitution 
contains  such  grant  of  power,  it  must  be  implied,  for  it  is  not  expressed. 

"  But,  say  the  advocates  of  a  strong  Government,  there  is  no  necessity 
for  its  being  expressed  ;  that  it  is  implied,  and  that  it  is  implied  from  the 
nature  and  character  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  circumstances  which 
gave  rise  to  its  formation.  For,  say  they,  the  main  object  of  the  Consti 
tution  was  to  obviate  and  remedy  evils  which  arose  under  the  weak  ad 
ministration  of  the  former  Confederation  from  the  want  of  this  very 
power.  They  admit  that  anterior  to  the  Constitution,  Congress  had  not 
this  power — that  the  States  were  separate  and  distinct  sovereignties ;  and 
they  tell  us  that  at  that  time  our  nation  was  in  debt ;  that  our  trade  was 
languishing ;  that  our  credit  was  lost ;  that  our  character  was  dishonored  ; 
that  there  was  no  remedy  ;  Congress  enacted  but  the  States  disregarded ; 
there  was  no  force  binding  the  people,  and  finally,  they  tell  us  that  it  was 


206  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

to  check  all  these  evils,  and  remedy  this  whole  state  of  deranged  affairs 
by  binding  the  States  to  the  decision  of  Congress,  and,  in  a  word,  by  de 
priving  them  of  their  sovereign  veto,  that  the  present  Constitution  was 
formed,  and  therefore,  though  this  be  not  all  expressed,  yet  it  must  be  im 
plied  from  the  very  nature  of  things,  etc.  Now,  that  these  evils  did  exist 
under  the  Confederation  to  a  great  extent,  is  admitted,  and  that  many  of 
them  were  remedied  by  the  present  Constitution  is  also  admitted ;  but  the 
inference  as  to  the  origin  or  cause  of  these  evils,  and  the  nature  of  their 
remedy,  is  erroneous.  They  did  not  originate  (according  to  the  inference) 
from  a  want  of  superior  force  or  power  in  Congress  to  bind  the  States,  but 
from  the  limited  number  of  subjects  and  objects  of  national  policy 
upon  which  the  States  had  permitted  Congress  to  act,  and  their  attempt 
ing  to  exercise  powers  not  granted.  It  is  true  our  nation  was  in  debt; 
that  our  trade  was  languishing ;  that  our  credit  was  lost,  and  that  Con 
gress  enacted  upon  these  subjects,  and  that  the  States  disregarded  those 
enactments.  And  why  ?  For  the  plainest  reason  in  the  world :  Because 
Congress,  the  agent  of  the  States,  was  meddling  with  matters  and  enact 
ing  upon  subjects  with  which  it  never  had  been  entrusted  with  sufficient 
and  proper  powers  to  do  the  business  as  it  ought  to  be  done,  and  not  as 
the  inference  would  imply,  because  there  was  a  want  of  power  to  compel 
the  States  to  comply  with  their  solemn  engagements.  This  want  of  power 
did  exist,  but  the  evils  did  not  arise  from  that;  and  so  far  from  its  being 
the  main  object  of  the  new  Constitution,  this  was  not  its  object  at  all.  It 
is  true  its  object  was  to  remedy  the  evils  of  the  Confederation.  But  it 
was  to  have  remedied  them  as  they  should  have  been  remedied — ly  en 
trusting  more  business  to  the  care  of  the  agent,  or  in  other  words,  by  permit 
ting  Congress  to  act  upon  more  subjects  which  experience  had  shown  the 
public  convenience  required.  .  .  .  This  was  the  object  of  the  Constitution. 
This  was  what  the  Constitution  effected.  While  the  obligation  on  the 
part  of  the  States  as  States  to  observe  and  obey  an  edict  of  Congress  is 
the  same  now  as  before  the  adoption1  of  the  present  Constitution.  The 
Government  has  not  changed  its  name  even.  Its  powers  were  enlarged, 
but  its  character  is  the  same ;  and  the  relation  between  the  States  and  this 
Government  have  been  multiplied,  but  the  nature  of  those  relations  is. un 
altered.  The  new  Constitution  is  a  compact  between  the  sovereign  States 
separately,  as  the  old  Confederation  was ;  and  if  this  be  so,  and  if  the  first 
article  of  the  Confederation  expressly  declares  that  sovereignty  or  su 
premacy  is  retained  to  the  States — denying  the  right  or  power  of  Congress 
to  coerce  or  compel  the  States,  the  parties  to  it,  to  obey  its  edicts — where 
is  this  right  or  power  derived  under  this  present  Constitution  ?  Indeed, 
fellow-citizens,  I  am  constrained  to  think  that  it  is  derived  nowhere,  and 
that  it  has  its  existence  only  in  the  breasts  of  the  parasites  of  power  who 
wish  to  overthrow  the  liberties  of  the  people." 

These  extracts,  whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  style  or . 


REJOINDER  OF  "NEW  ERA."  207 

logic  of  the  juvenile  argument,  will  suffice  to  show  you  and 
your  readers,  I  think,  at  least,  that  "  Mr.  Stephens,"  as  early  as 
1834,  as  well  as  in  1860  and  1861,  maintained  substantially  the 
same  principles  touching  the  nature  and  character  of  our  Con 
federate  system  of  government,  and  the  relation  of  the  States 
to  the  Union  under  it,  which  he  did  in  1860,  and  does  in  1870. 
If  he  ever  performed  an  act,  or  uttered  a  sentiment,  inconsist- 
ant  with  the  doctrines  announced  in  1834  on  this  subject,  he  is 
not  aware  of  it.  Throughout  his  public  life,  he  has  maintained 
that  the  underlying  principle  of  the  whole  structure  of  Ameri 
can  free  institutions  is  the  ultimate  absolute  sovereign  right  of 
local-self-government  on  the  part  of  each  State,  constituting  the 
several  members  of  the  system.  This  the  indisputable  facts 
of  our  history  show  to  be  true !  He  believes,  moreover,  with 
the  utmost  sincerity,  that  if  the  promulgation  of  these  facts 
and  truths  be  "  pernicious,  destructive,  and  revolutionary,"  that 
they  are  so  pernicious,  destructive,  and  revolutionary  only  to 
that  party  organization  whose  aims  and  objects  are  by  usurpa 
tions  of  power,  and  the  suppression  of  truth,  to  overthrow  the 
whole  fabric  of  free  government  instituted  by  our  ancestors,  and 
to  erect  in  its  stead  a  consolidated,  centralized  Empire. 
Yours,  very  respectfully, 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 


II. — REJOINDER  OF  THE  "Nsw  ERA." 

The  Secession  Revival. — Efforts  to  Resurrect  and  Revive  Dead  Issues. 
— Mr.  Stephens'  Letter. 

Mr.  Stephens,  in  the  introduction  to  his  work  entitled  "  The 
War  Between  the  States,"  declares  the  object  of  that  book  to 
be,  "an  inquiry  into  the  nature  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  or  the  nature  of  the  Union  which  exists  between 
the  States  under  the  Constitution,  with  the  causes,  or  conflict 
of  principles,  which  led  to  a  resort  to  arms."  In  his  communi 
cation,  which  we  cheerfully  publish  elsewhere,  he  disclaims  any 
purpose  "  to  set  up,  advance,  or  advocate  any  mere  theory  as  to 


208  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

the  nature  or  character  of  the  Federal  Government  under  the 
Union  of  the  States,  as  established  by  the  Constitution." 

E~ow,  a  theory r,  as  everybody  knows,  is  "  an  exposition  of  the 
general  principles  of  any  science,"  as  the  theory  of  government, 
for  instance.  It  is  a  philosophical  explanation  of  a  phenomenon ; 
and  this  phenomenon  may  be  physical,  as,  for  instance,  the 
congelation  of  water  into  a  hard,  brittle  substance  called  ice ; 
or  it  may  be  moral,  as  for  instance,  the  great  moral  phenom 
enon  of  the  reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century  ;  or  the  phys 
ical  conflict  witnessed  in  the  United  States  in  1861.  It  is  for 
the  purpose  of  explaining  this  last-named  phenomenon,  that 
Mr.  Stephens  takes  up  his  pen ;  and  he  succeeds  in  this  expla 
nation,  to  his  own  satisfaction,  at  least,  upon  the  hypothesis 
that. the  Government  of  the  United  States,  as  formed  by  the 
Constitution  of  1787,  is  not  a  Nation,  not  a  "  consolidated 
Union,"  as  President  "Washington  said  it  was,  but  merely  a 
League  or  "  Compact "  between  several  sovereign  and  inde 
pendent  States  or  nations.  Consequently,  he  assumes  that,  'be 
cause  the  national  Government  took  measures  to  enforce  its 
authority  as  a  Nation,  it  transcended  its  authority  as  a  federa 
tive  Agent  of  a  plurality  of  nationalities,  and  was,  therefore,  in 
the  wrong.  Hence,  according  to  Mr.  Stephens'  theory  or  ex 
position  of  the  principles  of  our  Government,  the  right  of 
Secession  still  inheres  with  the  people  of  any  one  of  the  States  ; 
and  they  may  exercise  this  "  right "  at  any  time  without,  in 
any  manner,  violating  the  Constitution.  This  conclusion  is 
legitimate,  because  Mr.  Stephens'  theory  invests  each  State  with 
"  an  equal  right  to  judge  for  itself,  as  well  of  infractions,  as  of 
the  mode  and  measure  of  redress  !  " 

Such,  in  brief,  is  Mr.  Stephens'  "  theory ; "  and  upon  such  a 
theory,  or,  rather,  shall  we  not  say  hypothesis,  nothing  is  easier 
than  to  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  the  present  Government 
of  the  United  States  is  "  usurpational,  unconstitutional,  revolu 
tionary,  null,  and  void,"  because  maintained  by  authority  not 
granted  in  the  original  Constitution,  or  written  agreement  of 
the  "  Compact ! "  That  is  certainly  the  logical  sequence  of  Mr. 
Stephens'  theory,  the  legitimate  conclusion  from  his  premises, 
whether  he  so  intended  it  or  not.  It  is,  therefore,  not  his  con- 


REJOINDER  OF   "NEW  ERA."  209 

elusions  per  se,  but  rather  the  false  and  mischievous  premises — 
the  pernicious  theory — from  which  his  conclusions  legitimately 
follow,  that  are  objectionable  in  the  argument  of  his  book. 

This  theory  of  a  federative  Agency  of  independent  Sover 
eign  States,  as  established  by  the  Constitution,  was  never  heard 
of  until  some  years  after  the  adoption  of  that  instrument  by 
the  people  of  the  different  States.  It  is  a  notorious  fact  that 
so  long  as  the  people  of  any  State  withheld  their  assent  from 
the  Federal  Constitution,  it  was  universally  represented  and 
reprobated  by  its  adversaries  as  a  scheme  of  "  absolute  and  un 
disguised  consolidation ! "  It  expressly  withdrew  from  the 
States,  and  invested  in  one  sovereign  head  all  power  with  re 
gard  to  war,  to  treaties,  and  to  diplomatic  or  commercial  inter 
course  ;  and  its  opponents  pointed  to  this  fact  as  proof  irresisti 
ble  of  the  correctness  of  their  position  that  it  provided  for  an 
absolute  and  undisguised  consolidation  of  the  States  into  one 
General  Government,  a  government  having  supreme  authority, 
and  therefore  demanding  the  Ultimate  Allegiance  of  the  citizen. 
Its  express  inhibition  of  any  alliance,  compact,  or  treaty  be 
tween  two  or  more  of  the  States,  was  to  the  minds  of  the  anti- 
Federalists  even  more  conclusive  on  this  head ;  the  very  pre 
amble  to  the  instrument  proclaimed  it,  as  they  said,  the  work 
of  the  PEOPLE  of  the  United  States,  and  not  a  mere  Alliance  or 
Compact  between  independent  States,  in  their  capacity  of  sepa 
rate  and  distinct  sovereignties. 

Speaking  of  this  very  point,  in  opposition  to  the  Govern 
ment  provided  in  the  Constitution,  Patrick  Henry  said :  "  That 
this  is  a  consolidated  Government  is  demonstrably  clear ;  and 
the  danger  of  such  a  government  is  to  my  mind  very  striking. 
....  If  the  States  be  not  the  agents  of  this  compact,  it  must 
be  one  great,  Consolidated,  National  Government  of  the  people 
of  the  States.  ...  I  need  not  take  much  pains  to  show  that 
the  principles  of  this  system,  i.  e.,  the  system  proposed  by  the 
Constitution,  are  extremely  pernicious,  impolitic,  and  danger 
ous." 

The  Constitution  was,  in  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Henry,  "  per 
nicious,  impolitic,  and  dangerous,"  because  it  provided,  not  for 
a  league,  a  compact  between  the  sovereign  States ;  but  because 
14 


210  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

it  provided  for  a  consolidated,  Central  Government  of  the  Peo 
ple  of  tlie  United  States,  a  Government  demanding  the  ulti 
mate  allegiance  of  the  citizen  even  as  against  the  State  organi 
zation. 

Nor  did  the  advocates  of  the  proposed  system  controvert 
the  conclusions  of  its  opponents  on  this  point.  On  the  con 
trary,  they  frankly  admitted  that  the  Constitution  was  the  work 
of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  as  distinguished  from  the 
States  in  their  primary  and  sovereign  capacity.  They  did  not 
hesitate  to  assert  that  the  Government  provided  by  this  Con 
stitution  claimed  the  highest  allegiance  of  the  citizen.  They 
even  went  beyond  the  objections  urged  by  its  opponents,  and 
plainly  told  them  that  the  Constitution  left  the  States  no  re 
served  or  undivided  sovereignty  whatever ;  and  this  was  mani 
fest  in  the  fact  that,  by  the  Constitution,  the  States  had  ex 
pressly  ceded  the  right  to  punish  treason — not  treason  against 
their  separate  power,  but  treason  against  the  United  States ; 
and  treason  being  an  offense  against  sovereignty,  sovereignty 
must  necessarily  reside  exclusively  with  the  power  competent 
to  punish  it.  Even  General  "Washington  did  not  hesitate  to 
assert  that  the  end  proposed  by  this  Constitution  was  the  "  CON 
SOLIDATION  of  our  Union ; "  and  he  never  ceased  to  regard  as 
of  the  highest  importance  and  the  greatest  benefit,  the  fact  that 
the  Constitution  which  he  lived  to  see  adapted  by  the  people  of 
all  the  States,  did  provide  for  a  "  consolidated  Union  "  or  Gov 
ernment  demanding  the  ultimate  allegiance  of  the  citizen,  even 
as  against  the  individual  State.  And  history  teaches  no  one 
thing  more  clearly  than  that  it  was  the  purpose  of  the  framers 
of  the  Constitution,  to  render  the  inhabitants  of  all  the  States 
essentially  and  permanently  ONE  PEOPLE,  living  under  a  com 
mon  Government,  and  recognized  by  a  common  National  desig 
nation.  This  fact  is  fully  demonstrated  in  the  published  de 
bates  and  the  writings  between  and  by  the  advocates  and  oppo 
nents  of  the  Constitution.  Both  parties  were  agreed  as  to  the 
general  scope,  purport,  and  design  of  the  instrument.  There 
was  no  dispute  then  as  to  the  truth  of  the  proposition  that  it 
provided  for  a  consolidated  National  Government  of  the  PEO 
PLE  of  the  United  States,  and  not  merely  for  a  Confederation, 


REJOINDER  OF   "NEW  ERA."  211 

Alliance,  or  League  between  sovereign,  independent,  and  sepa 
rate  States.  One  party  advocated  its  adoption  because  it  thus 
provided  for  a  consolidated  Government  of  the  People,  and  it 
was  for  this  identical  reason  that  the  other  opposed  it.  This  is 
a  matter  of  history  which  we  do  not  remember  ever  to  have 
seen  controverted ;  and  when  controverted,  then  will  be  time 
to  quote  authorities. 

It  was  not  until  after  the  Constitution  had  been  ratified, 
and  therefore  not  until  after  this  great  Central  Power  or  Na 
tionality  which  they  so  much  dreaded  had  been  formed,  that 
the  opponents  of  the  Constitution  became — at  least  in  profession 
—its  most  ardent  admirers  and  vigilant  guardians !  They  fell 
so  much  in  love  with  what  they  termed  a  scheme  of  absolute 
Consolidation,  that  they  actually  became  the  champions  of  the 
Constitution  as  against  those  who  had  framed  it  and  with  diffi 
culty  achieved  its  ratification !  In  a  few  years  thereafter,  these 
same  parties  began  to  talk  about  "  strict  construction,"  the  "re 
served  rights "  to  the  States  of  all  powers  not  expressly  dele 
gated  to  the  General  Government,  and  consequently  of  Federal 
usurpation!  For,  in  1798  we  find  the  celebrated  "Virginia 
and  Kentucky  Resolutions,"  the  authorship  of  which  was  not 
openly  avowed  by  Mr.  Jefferson  until  nearly  twenty  years 
thereafter,  and  which  constituted  the  corner-stone  upon  which 
Mr.  Calhoun  erected  his  Nullification  heresies,  as  they  are  also 
the  basis  upon  which  Mr.  Stephens  erects  his  present  defence 
of  Secession !  Three  years  after  the  date  of  these  somewhat 
celebrated  political  theses,  Mr.  Jefferson  became  President  of 
the  United  States ;  and  the  proposed  purchase  of  Louisiana  put 
his  fidelity  to  the  "  strict  construction "  theory  to  the  severest 
possible  test.  In  the  Constitution  there  was  clearly  no  author 
ity  for  the  purchase  unless  found  in  that  clause  which  provides 
for  the  "  general  welfare ; "  and  this  Mr.  Jefferson  had  pre 
viously  declared,  in  the  set  of  Resolutions  above  referred  to, 
was  meant  "  to  be  subsidiary  only  to  the  execution  of  limited 
powers."  There  could  be  no  power  not  "  expressly  "  granted, 
said  Mr.  Jefferson ;  nevertheless  he  did  recommend  the  pur 
chase,  thereby  giving  us  to  infer  either  that  he  knowingly  vio 
lated  the  instrument  whose  provisions  he  had  sworn  to  sup- 


212  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

port ;  or  else  tliat  lie  held  his  partisan  thesis  of  "  strict  construc 
tion,"  and  its  concomitant  crochets  about  the  "reserved  sov 
ereignty  of  the  States,"  in  subordination  to  his  higher  sense  of 
duty  as  head  of  the  Nation ! 

In  1832,  South  Carolina  threatened  the  exercise  of  this  "  re 
served  right "  in  the  nullification  of  a  law  of  Congress.  Being, 
according  to  Mr.  Stephens'  theory,  an  independent  power,  in 
every  thing  except  the  prerogatives  "  expressly  "  delegated  to 
the  Federal  "  agency "  or  "  compact,"  she  undertook  to  fall 
back  upon  her  "  sovereignty  "  as  an  independent  power,  and 
declare  a  law  of  Congress  a  "  usurpation,  unconstitutional, 
revolutionary,  null,  and  void  " — -just  as  Mr.  Stephens  and  his 
echoes  now  say  of  the  Constitutional  amendments  and  the  Re 
construction  laws  of  the  Government !  Mr.  Hayne,  of  South 
Carolina,  as  the  representative  of  that  theory,  held  that  it  was 
constitutional  to  interrupt  the  administration  of  the  Constitu 
tion  itself,  in  the  hands  of  those  who  had  been  chosen  to  ad 
minister  it,  by  the  direct  interference  in  the  form  of  law,  of  the 
States,  in  virtue  of  their  sovereign  capacity.  This  threatened 
purpose  to  carry  the  theory  of  strict  construction  and  State 
sovereignty  to  its  legitimate  sequence  in  the  form  of  Nullifica 
tion,  was  promptly  met  and  put  down  by  President  Jackson, 
who  declared  that  "  It  would  be  solecism  to  contend  that  any 
part  of  a  nation  may  dissolve  its  connection  with  the  other 
parts,  to  their  injury  or  ruin,  without  committing  any  offence," 
to  the  constitution  of  its  government.  And  yet,  according  to 
Mr.  Stephens,  South  Carolina  had  the  Constitutional  right  to 
do  this  very  thing ;  because,  according  to  his  understanding  of 
the  Constitution,  it  made  the  State  the  sole  judge  as  well  of  the 
infraction  as  of  the  mode  and  measure  of  redress! 

When  the  next  effort  was  made  to  reduce  this  pernicious 
theory  to  practice,  Mr.  Stephens  opposed  it,  as  he  tells  us,  from 
considerations  of  policy ;  but  he  maintained,  at  the  same  time, 
as  he  intimates,  that  Georgia  had  the  constitutional  right  to 
"  break  the  sacred  instrument "  in  order  the  better  to  preserve 
the  "  principles  "  upon  which  it  was  founded  ! 

He  made  one  of  the  most  manly  and  truly  eloquent  appeals 
on  record,  against  the  proposition  to  secede  ;  and  he  even  went 


REJOINDER  OF   "NEW  ERA."  213 

so  far  as  to  say  tliat  to  secede  for  such  a  cause,  or  upon  such  an 
occasion — the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln  to  the  Presidency — would 
be  to  break  the  Constitution,  violate  our  plighted  faith  to  the 
other  States,  and  put  ourselves  clearly  in  the  wrong.  He 
claims,  however,  in  the  communication,  which  we  publish  this 
morning,  that  because  he  denied  the  rightful  authority  to 
secede  for  such  a  cause  or  upon  such  an  occasion,  he  did  not 
thereby  assume  that  no  State  could  rightfully  exercise  her  sov 
ereign  power  in  withdrawing  for  any  cause  whatever.  Now, 
since  Mr.  Stephens  tells  us  that  the  object  of  his  book  is  to 
show  who  was  right  and  who  was  wrong  in  the  recent  physical 
conflict,  it  must  follow,  according  to  Mr.  Stephens'  own  premises, 
that  the  secession  leaders  in  the  Democratic  party  were  the 
culpable  parties,  since  they  did  exercise  a  "  right "  which  he 
himself  had,  only  a  few  months  previous,  pronounced  unjusti 
fiable  !  It  is  true,  Mr.  Stephens,  in  the  communication  under 
notice,  makes  an  ingenious  special  plea  on  this  point — a  plea 
that  gives  him  more  character  as  a  sharp  attorney  than  credit 
for  philosophical  statesmanship ;  but  the  query  very  naturally 
arises  in  the  minds  of  plain  men,  Why  did  Mr.  Stephens  fail 
then  to  say  that  for  other  then  existing  causes  than  the  mere 
election  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  the  State  might  exercise  the  "  right " 
of  secession  without  violating  the  Constitution,  and  conse 
quently  without  being  in  the  wrong?  If  he  ever  said  any 
thing  of  this  kind  until  it  became  his  task  to  justify  the  act  of 
Secession,  and  harmonize  his  Union  speech  of  November  14, 
1860,  with  his  course  afterward,  it  has  escaped  our  notice. 

There  is  another  point  in  Mr.  Stephens'  book,  hinted  at  in 
his  communication  of  this  morning,  which  cannot  escape  the 
attention  of  the  critical  reader.  Paramount  authority  or  Sov 
ereignty,  according  to  the  legitimate  inferences  from  that  book, 
rests  with  the  People.  This,  we  presume,  no  one  questions ; 
but,  then,  who  are  the  People  ?  Evidently  they  are  the  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  and  not  a  majority  in  some  individual 
State  of  the  Union,  comprising  less  than  one-twentieth  of  the 
citizens  of  the  United  States.  According  to  the  genius  of  our 
Government,  the  People  may,  on  the  ground  of  the  inalienable 
right  of  man,  resist  oppression  ;  that  is  to  say,  they  may  right- 


KEVIEWEKS  KEVIEWED. 

fully  resist  the  government,  or  rather  the  adminstration  of  it, 
upon  the  ground  of  revolution.  This  right  of  revolution  no 
body  denies ;  but  the  constitutional  right  of  Secession,  clearly 
implies  that  we  have  no  Constitution  of  General  Government, 
and,  therefore,  no  Nation,  but  rather  a  diplomatic  Agency  of 
thirty-six  independent  States  or  nationalities,  which  may  be 
broken  up  and  destroyed  any  morning  before  breakfast,  and 
for  any  cause  or  causes  that  a  majority  of  the  people  one  thirty- 
sixth  of  the  Union  may  deem  justifiable.  And  all  this,  accord 
ing  to  Mr.  Stephens'  understanding  of  the  nature  of  our  Gov 
ernment,  would  be  constitutional ! 

Now,  Mr.  Stephens  may  honestly  believe  all  this,  and  it 
may  have  been  his  honest  belief,  as  he  says  it  has  been,  for 
more  than  thirty  years ;  and  yet  that  fact  does  not  make  his 
theory  any  the  less  destructive  of  the  peace  and  order  of  society. 
And,  in  view  of  the  dreadful  experiences  of  the  past,  the 
people  of  Georgia  cannot  look  with  much  favor  upon  any 
scheme,  whether  in  the  field  of  literature  or  upon  the  forum, 
looking  to  the  resurrection  and  rehabilitation  of  a  political 
party  denying  the  nationality  and  sovereignty  of  the  Govern 
ment,  and  which  holds  Secession  and  nullification  to  be  consti 
tutional  prerogatives,  to  be  held  in  abeyance  until  such  oppor 
tunities  may  arise  as  will  unite  policy  with  principle  in  the  de 
struction  of  the  Union ! 


III. — ME.  STEPHENS'  SILK-REJOINDER  TO  THE  "  NEW  ERA." 

LIBERTY  HALL,  ) 

CRAWFORDVILLE,  GEORGIA,  December  2,  1870.  ) 

To  the  Editor  of  the  New  Era,  Atlanta,  Ga.  : 

DEAR  SIR  : — I  thank  you  for  the  publication  of  my  letter  of 
the  19th  ultimo.  In  that,  your  readers,  I  feel  quite  assured, 
found  proof  sufficient  to  satisfy  them  that  "Mr.  Stephens  of  1868 
and  1870  does  not  reverse  Mr.  Stephens  of  1860  and  1861." 
This  point,  therefore,  may  be  considered  settled,  but  one  re 
mark  made  by  you  editorially  on  this  subject  in  the  same  issue, 
justifies,  if  it  does  not  call  for,  a  brief  comment  by  me  which  I 


SUE-REJOINDER  -TO   "NEW  ERA."  215 

trust  you  will  allow  me  to  make.  The  remark  to  which  I  allude 
is  in  these  words : 

"  It  is  true,  Mr.  Stephens,  in  the  communication  under  notice,  makes 
an  ingenious  special  plea  on  this  point— a  plea  that  gives  him  more 
character  as  a  sharp  attorney  than  credit  for  philosophical  statesmanship ; 
but  the  query  very  naturally  rises  in  the  minds  of  plain  men,  Why  did 
Mr.  Stephens  fail  then  to  say  that  for  other  then  existing  causes  than  the 
mere  election -of  Mr.  Lincoln,  the  State  might  exercise  the  'right'  of 
secession  without .  violating  the  Constitution,  and  consequently  without 
being  in  the  wrong  ?  If  he  ever  said  any  thing  of  this  kind  until  it  be 
came  his  task  to  justify  the  act  of  Secession,  and  harmonize  his  Union 
speech  of  November  14,  1860,  with  his  course  afterward,  it  has  escaped 
our  notice." 

To  this  I  wish  merely  to  say  that  the  extracts  furnished  in 

«/  V 

the  communication,  to  which  you  refer,  were  taken  from  the 
same  speech  from  which  you  quoted  in  your  issues  of  the  llth 
and  16th  ultimo.  If  they  escaped  your  notice,  either  when  the 
speech  was  made,  or  when  you  were  quoting  from  it,  it  shows 
much  more  clearly,  you  will  allow  me  most  respectfully  to  say, 
that  you  are  a  careless  reader,  than  that  I,  in  their  reproduction, 
exhibited,  in  any  way,  the  character  of  a  bare  "  sharp  attorney." 
These  very  extracts  were  part  and  parcel  of  the  same  speech, 
which  you  are  pleased  to  characterize  as  very  "  statesmanlike ; " 
and  went  with  it  broadcast  over  the  United  States. 

As  to  what  else  you  say  in  your  two  columns'  comments  on 
my  communication  of  the  19tli  ultimo,  I  have  also  some  remarks 
to  submit  to  your  consideration  and  that  of  your  readers,  for 
which  I  shall  solicit  your  indulgence. 

In  no  part  of  these  comments  do  you  directly  assail  any  of 
the  facts  touching  the  history  of  the  Federal  Government  set 
forth  in  the  "  two  volumes "  referred  to,  which  you  seem  to 
think  have  been  arrayed  with  a  view  to  establish  a  theory  quite 
destructive,  in  your  opinion,  of  the  "peace  of  society;"  but 
you  do  indulge  at  considerable  length  in  round  statements, 
which  are  entirely  inconsistent  with  these  facts. 

Among  other  things  you  say : 

"  This  theory  of  a  federative  Agency  of  independent  Sovereign  States, 
as  established  by  the  Constitution,  was  never  heard  of  until  some  years 
after  the  adoption  of  that  instrument  by  the  people  of  the  different  States. 


216  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

It  is  a  notorious  fact  that  so  long  as  the  people  of  any  State  withheld 
their  assent  from  the  Federal  Constitution,  it  was  universally  represented 
and  reprobated  by  its  adversaries  as  a  scheme  of  'absolute  and  undisguised 
consolidation ! '  It  expressly  withdrew  from  the  States,  and  invested  in 
one  sovereign  head,  all  power  with  regard  to  war,  to  treaties,  and  to 
diplomatic  or  commercial  intercourse ;  and  its  opponents  pointed  to  this 
fact  as  proof  irresistible  of  the  correctness  of  their  position  that  it  provided 
for  an  absolute  and  undisguised  consolidation  of  the  States  into  one  Gen 
eral  Government,  a  government  having  unlimited  authority,  and  therefore 
demanding  the  Ultimate  Allegiance  of  the  citizen.  Its  express  inhibition 
of  any  alliance,  compact,  or  treaty  between  two  or  more  of  the  States  was 
to  the  minds  of  the  anti-Federalists  even  more  conclusive  on  this  head : 
the  very  preamble  to  the  instrument  proclaimed  it,  as  they  said,  the  work 
of  the  PEOPLE  of  the  United  States,  and  not  a  mere  Alliance  or  Compact 
between  independent  States,  in  their  capacity  of  separate  and  distinct 
sovereignties. 

"  Speaking  of  this  very  point,  in  opposition  to  the  Government  provided 
in  the  Constitution,  Patrick  Henry  said :  '  That  this  is  a  consolidated  Gov 
ernment  is  deinoiistrably  clear  ;  and  the  danger  of  such  a  government  is 
to  my  mind  very  striking.  ...  If  the  States  be  not  the  Agents  of  this 
compact,  it  must  be  one  great  Consolidated,  National  Government  of  the 
people  of  the  States.  ...  I  need  not  take  much  pains  to  show  that  the 
principles  of  this  system,  i.  e.,  the  system  proposed  by  the  Constitution, 
are  extremely  pernicious,  impolitic,  and  dangerous.' 

"The  Constitution  was,  in  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Henry,  'pernicious,  im 
politic,  and  dangerous,'  because  it  provided,  not  for  a  league,  a  compact 
between  the  sovereign  States ;  but  because  it  provided  for  a  consolidated, 
Central  Government  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,  a  Government 
demanding  the  ultimate  allegiance  of  the  citizen  even  as  against  the  State 
organization. 

"  Nor  did  the  advocates  of  the  proposed  system  controvert  the  con 
clusions  of  its  opponents  on  this  point.  On  the  contrary,  they  frankly 
admitted  that  the  Constitution  was  the  work  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  as  distinguished  from  the  States  in  their  primary  and  sovereign 
capacity.  They  did  not  hesitate  to  assert  that  the  Government  provided 
by  this  Constitution  claimed  the  highest  allegiance  of  the  citizen.  They 
even  went  beyond  the  objections  urged  by  its  opponents,  and  plainly  told 
them  that  the  Constitution  left  the  States  no  reserved  or  undivided  sov 
ereignty  whatever ;  and  that  this  was  manifest  in  the  fact  that,  by  the 
Constitution,  the  States  had  expressly  ceded  the  right  to  punish  treason — 
not  treason  against  their  separate  power,  but  treason  against  the  United 
States ;  and  treason  being  an  offence  against  sovereignty,  sovereignty  must 
necessarily  reside  exclusively  with  the  power  competent  to  punish  it. 
Even  General  Washington  did  not  hesitate  to  assert  that  the  end  proposed 


SUE-REJOINDER  TO   "NEW  ERA."  217 

by  this  Constitution  was  the  *  CONSOLIDATION  of  our  Union ; '  and  he 
never  ceased  to  regard  as  of  the  highest  importance,  and  the  greatest  bene 
fit,  the  fact  that  the  Constitution  which  he  lived  to  see  adopted  by  the 
people  of  all  the  States,  did  provide  for  a  '  consolidated  Union '  Govern 
ment  demanding  the  ultimate  allegiance  of  the  citizen  even  as  against  the 
individual  State.  And  history  teaches  no  one  thing  more  clearly  than 
that  it  was  the  purpose  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  to  render  the 
inhabitants  of  all  the  States  essentially  and  permanently  ONE  PEOPLE,  living 
under  a  common  Government,  and  recognized  by  a  common  National 
designation.  This  fact  is  fully  demonstrated  in  the  published  debates  and 
the  writings  between  and  by  the  advocates  and  opponents  of  the  Constitu 
tion.  Both  parties  were  agreed  as  to  the  general  scope,  purport,  and' 
design  of  the  instrument.  There  was  no  dispute  then  as  to  the  truth  of 
the  proposition  that  it  provided  for  a  consolidated,  National  Government 
of  the  PEOPLE  of  the  United  States,  and  not  merely  for  a  Confederation, 
Alliance,  or  League  between  sovereign  independent  and  separate  States. 
One  party  advocated  its  adoption  because  it  thus  provided  for  a  consoli 
dated  Government  of  the  People,  and  it  was  for  this  identical  reason  that 
the  other  opposed  it.  This  is  a  matter  of  history  which  we  do  not  re 
member  ever  to  have  seen  controverted ;  and  when  controverted,  then 
will  be  time  to  quote  authorities." 

Now,  allow  me  to  say  that  truth  is  seldom  arrived  at  in  any 
department  of  knowledge,  either  by  rambling  discourse  or 
wrangling  disputation.  I  have  no  taste  for  either.  In  order, 
therefore,  that  we  may  come  to  a  definite  understanding  upon 
points  and  issues  of  fact  on  which  the  truth  of  our  history  rests, 
as  to  the  real  nature  and  character  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  let  me  ask  : 

1st.  Have  you  examined  or  "  noticed  "  the  documentary  evi 
dence  adduced  on  page  4:8,.et  sequeiis,  1st  vol.  of  the  "  War  Be 
tween  the  States,"  to  prove  the  fact  that  the  words,  "consolida 
tion  of  the  Union"  used  in  the  letter  of  the  Convention  that 
framed  the  Constitution,  addressed  to  the  Congress  of  States 
then  in  session  (which  you  attribute  to  General  Washington,  as 
thousands  of  others  have  erroneously  done,  but  which  was  barely 
signed  by  him  officially  as  President  of  the  Convention),  were 
not  intended,  by  those  who  prepared  that  letter,  to  convey  the 
idea  that  the  "  Federal  system  "  of  the  then  existing  Union  of 
the  States  was  to  be  done  away  with  by  the  adoption  of  the 
new  Constitution  proposed;  but  that  the  meaning  of  these 
words  in  their  connection  was  only  to  strengthen  the  then  exist- 


218  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

ing  Federal  Union  of  the  States?  If  so,  do  you  assail  its 
authenticity  or  deny  its  sufficiency  ? 

2d.  Have  you  examined  or  "  noticed "  the  record  adduced 
on  page  238,  vol.  1st,  from  which  it  appears,  that  when  Mr. 
Shurtliff  in  the  Massachusetts'  ratifying  Convention,  called  at 
tention  especially  to  this  point,  and  remarked  (referring  to  the 
Convention  which  framed  the  Constitution,  and  the  very  words 
quoted  by  you),  "  The  Convention  says  they  aimed  at  a  consoli 
dation  of  the  Union,"  he  was  told  by  distinguished  leaders  in 
that  body,  who  favored  the  ratification,  "  The  distinction  is  be 
tween  the  consolidation  of  the  States  and  a  consolidation  of  the 
Union"  " The  word  consolidation  has  different  ideas — as  diff 
erent  metals  melted  into  one  mass — two  twigs  tied  into  one 
bundle."  "  The  Senators  will  represent  the  sovereignty  of  the 
States,  the  Representatives  are  to  represent  the  people." 

If  so,  do  you  assail  the  authenticity  of  the  record,  or  deny 
its  sufficiency  to  prove  that  the  advocates  of  the  Constitution 
in  the  Massachusetts  Convention  did  not  claim  for  it  that  con 
solidation  of  the  whole  people  of  the  United  States  into  one 
~body  politic,  and  a  surrender  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  several 
States  which  you  maintain  they  did  ? 

3d.  Have  you  examined  or  "  noticed  "  the  record  adduced 
on  page  214, 1st  vol.,  which  shows  that  Mr.  Wilson,  in  the  Rati 
fying  Convention  of  Pennsylvania,  who  had  been  one  of  the 
most  active  members  in  the  convention  which  framed  the  Con 
stitution,  and  one  of  its  most  ardent  advocates  and  supporters, 
said,  that  the  plan  proposed  for  the  government  of  the  United 
States  was  a  "  Confederate  Republic,"  and  that  (page  222)  so 
far  from  its  being  "  a  consolidated  Government  "  (in  the  sense 
you  speak  of ),  "  it  ivas  not  treated  with  decency  when  such  insin 
uations  are  offered  against  it  t"  If  so,  do  you  assail  either  the 
competency  or  sufficiency  of  the  proof  there  adduced,  to  utterly 
demolish  your  assertions  as  to  the  position  of  the  friends  and 
advocates  of  the  Constitution  everywhere,  when  it  was  before 
the  State  Convention  for  adoption  ? 

4th.  Have  you  examined  or  "  noticed  "  the  evidence  ad 
duced,  page  27T>  et  sequens,  1st  vol.,  which  shows  that  every 
supporter  of  the  Constitution  in  the  Ratifying  Convention  of 


SUR-KEJOINDER  TO   "NEW  ERA."  219 

the  State  of  New  York,  held  and  maintained,  that  the  plan  of 
Government  proposed  by  the  Constitution  was  a  "  Confederated 
Republic,"  and  that  even  Alexander  Hamilton,  in  that  Conven 
tion,  on  the  point  of  " consolidation"  said  (page  283,  1st  vol.), 
"  The  States  can  never  lose  their  powers  till  the  whole  people 
of  America  are  robbed  of  their  liberties.  These  must  go  to 
gether;  they  must  support  each  other,  or  meet  one  common 
fate  ? "  If  so,  do  you  assail  the  authenticity  of  the  proof,  or 
deny  its  sufficiency  to  establish  the  fact,  that  no  advocate  or 
friend  of  the  Constitution  in  the  New  York  Convention  claimed 
for  it  a  surrender  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  several  States  as 
you  maintain  they  did  ? 

5th.  Have  yo'u  examined  or  "  noticed  "  the  proofs  adduced 
on  page  156,  et  sequens,  1st  vol.,  to  show  the  fact  that  Wash 
ington  himself,  who  had  officially  signed  the  letter  prepared  by 
the  Convention  that  framed  the  Constitution,  in  which  occur 
the  words  quoted  by  you  about  a  "  consolidation  of  the  Union  " 
after  that  letter  had  been  published  and  discussed,  and  while  the 
Constitution  was  under  consideration  for  adoption  or  rejection, 
by  a  sufficient  number  of  States  to  make  it  "  binding  between  " 
those  which  should  ratify  it,  in  speaking  of  the  nature  of  the  Gov 
ernment  which  would  be  established  by  it,  styled  it  "  a  new 
Confederacy,"  "new  Federal  system,"  and  a  "Confederated 
Government ;  "  and  that,  in  a  message  to  the  Senate  after  ten 
States  had  ratified  it,  and  the  Government  had  gone  into  oper 
ation  under  it,  he  styled  it  a  "  Confederated  Republic  1 " 

If  so,  do  you  assail  the  validity  of  the  proofs,  or  maintain 
that  the  views  of  Washington,  as  expressed  in  these  proofs,  are 
at  all  consistent  with  yours,  touching  a  "  consolidation  of  the 
Union,"  and  a  general  merger  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  several 
States  into  one  absolute,  supreme,  central  head  ? 

6th.  Have  you  examined  or  "noticed"  the  evidence  ad 
duced  on  page  163,  et  seguens,  1st  vol.,  which  shows  conclu 
sively,  if  true,  that  every  advocate  of  the  ratification  of  the 
Constitution  in  all  the  States,  from  Georgia  to  New  Hampshire, 
supported  it  avowedly,  upon  the  universal  understanding,  that 
the  Government  to  be  established  by  it  was  not  a  consolidation 
of  all  the  people  of  all  the  States  into  one  central  Government 


220  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

— claiming  their  allegiance — but  that  it  was  to  be  a  "  Federal," 
or  "  Confederated,"  union  of  the  States  ? 

If  so,  do  you  assail  its  validity,  or  deny  its  conclusiveness? 

7th.  Have  you  examined  or  "  noticed  "  the  proofs  on  page 
167,  et  sequens,  1st  vol.,  of  the  well-known  meaning  of  the  words 
"  Federal,"  "  Federate,"  and  «  Confederate,"  in  that  day  ;  as 
given  by  Dr.  Samuel  Johnson,  in  his  standard  Dictionary  of  the 
English  Language — showing  that  each  and  all  of  these  words 
are  derived  from  the  Latin  word  Foedus,  which  means  covenant 
or  compact ;  and  that  "Federal"  meant  "relating  to  a  League 
or  Contract"  and  that  " Federate "  meant  " leagued,  joined  in 
a  Confederacy?" 

If  so,  do  you  gainsay  the  proof  or  deny  the  use  and  force  of 
its  application  ? 

8th.  Have  you  examined  or  "noticed"  the  proofs  adduced 
on  the  same  page,  which  shows  that  Dr.  ISToah  "Webster,  the 
great  American  lexicographer,  who  took  an  active  part  in  the 
formation  of  the  present  Constitution,  says,  in  his  Dictionary, 
of  this  word  "  Federal,"  that  it  is  derived  from  the  Latin  word 
"foedus"  which  means  "  a  league  " — that  the  word  "  league  " 
he  defines  to  be  "  an  Alliance  or  Confederacy  between  Princes 
or  States  for  their  mutual  aid  or  defense,"  and  that,  in  defining 
the  meaning  of  the  word  " Federal"  he  used  this  language : 
"  Consisting  in  a  compact  between  States  /  founded  on  alliance 
by  contract  or  mutual  agreement,  as  a  Federal  Government, 
such  as  that  of  the  United  States '? " 

If  so,  do  you  gainsay  the  proof  or  deny  the  proper  use  and 
force  of  its  application  ? 

It  is  true  that  after  the  late  war  was  begun  and  the  "  peace 
of  society"  was  disturbed  by  it — in  1864 — certain  editors,  in 
publishing  a  new  edition  of  this  great  Dictionary,  after  the 
death  of  the  distinguished  author,  did  most  unjustifiably,  if  not 
sacrilegiously,  expunge  from  it  this  definition,  as  they  did  the 
author's  definition  of  several  other  words  relating  to  the  nature 
and  character  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  such 
as  "  compact,"  "  Congress,"  "  Confederation,"  "  Constitution," 
etc.  But  do  you  assail  either  the  authenticity  of  the  proofs  ad 
duced,  or  their  conclusiveness  in  establishing  the  fact,  that  the 


SUE-REJOINDER  TO   "KEW  ERA."  221 

universally  received  sense  and  meaning  of  the  words  at  the 
time,  were  as  defined  by  Dr.  Johnson  and  Dr.  Webster  ?  If 
you  cannot  assail  or  deny  either,  is  not  the  conclusion  irresisti 
ble,  that .  the  universal  opinion  of  the  friends  of  the  Constitu 
tion  when  it  was  adopted,  was,  that  the  Union  of  the  States 
under  it  was  "  a  Federal  Union  " — a  Union  founded  upon  com 
pact  between  separate  States  for  their  mutual  aid  and  defence ; 
and  that  the  Government  established  by  it  was,  indeed,  as 
Washington  styled  it,  a  "  Confederated  Eepublic  ? " 

9th.  Have  you  examined  or  "  noticed  "  the  authorities  of 
Montesquieu  and  Yattel,  adduced  on  pages  169  and  170,  1st 
vol.,  as  to  the  nature  and  character  of  a  "  Confederate  Repub 
lic,"  or  "  Federal  Union ;  "  and  from  which  it  clearly  appears, 
that,  in  all  such  cases,  the  sovereignty  of  each  member  of  the 
Union  or  Confederacy  is  necessarily  retained  by  the  States 
severally — that  "  voluntary  restraints  "  may  be  put  upon  its  ex 
ercise,  as  in  all  other  cases  of  compact  between  States ;  but  that 
in  no  such  case  is  ultimate  sovereignty  parted  with  by  any 
State,  upon  entering  into  a  Union  of  this  character  ?  If  so,  do 
you  gainsay  the  genuineness  of  the  authority  cited,  or  deny  the 
extent  of  the  use  or  application  made  of  them  ? 

10th.  Have  you  examined  or  "  noticed  "  the  evidence  adduced 
on  pages  162,  et  sequens,  and  257,  et  sequens,  1st  vol.,  showing 
how  Patrick  Henry  (who  did  oppose  the  adoption  of  the  Con 
stitution  in  the  Virginia  Convention,  from  fears  that  the  char 
acter  which  you  and  other  Centralists  now  claim  for  the  Gov 
ernment  under  it,  would  be  imparted  to  it  by  construction,  and 
that  Public  Liberty  would  thereby  be  ultimately  lost)  was  an 
swered  by  Pendleton,  the  President  of  the  Convention,  by  Lee, 
Nicholas,  Marshall,  and  Madison,  to  say  nothing  of  others  ? 

If  so,  do  you  deny  that  it  does  conclusively  show  that  no 
one  of  them  agreed  with  Patrick  Henry  in  the  sentiments  ex 
pressed  by  him,  and  quoted  by  you  ?  Does  not  the  evidence 
show  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  doubt  that  every  one  of  these 
friends  and  advocates  of  the  Constitution  in  the  Virginia  Rati 
fying  Convention  maintained  that  Patrick  Henry's  position  was 
wrong — that  his  views  were  entirely  erroneous — that  his  appre 
hensions  were  utterly  groundless  j  and  that  the  Government  to 


222  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

be  established  would  be  Federal  in  its  character — founded  upon 
a  compact  between  the  States — delegating  certain  specially 
enumerated  powers  which  could  be  resumed  if  abused ;  and 
not  such  a  "  consolidated  Government "  as  he  apprehended  it 
would  be  construed  to  ~be  f 

llth.  Does  not  the  proof  show  that  every  advocate  of  the  Consti 
tution  in  the  Convention  of  Virginia  as  in  that  of  Massachusetts, 
of  Pennsylvania,  of  New  York,  and  of  every  other  State,  sup 
ported  it  as  a  Federal  Constitution  f  Did  not  Madison,  in  re 
ply  to  these  very  remarks  quoted  by  you  of  Patrick  Henry,  say : 
"  Who  are  the  parties  to  it  ?  The  People ;  but  not  the  People 
as  composing  one  great  body ;  but  the  People  as  composing 
thirteen  sovereignties  f  " 

If  so,  how  do  you  say  that  "  this  tlieory  (if  you  please,  or 
ihisfact,  as  I  should  rather  say),  of  a  Federative  Agency  of  in 
dependent  sovereign  States,  as  established  by  the  Constitution, 
was  never  heard  of  until  some  years  after  the  adoption  of  that 
Instrument  by  the  people  of  the  different  States  \ " 

12th.  Have  you  examined  or  "  noticed  "  the  proof  adduced 
on  page  475,  1st  vol.,  showing  the  views  of  General  Jackson 
upon  this  identical  question  ?  Upon  the  authority  of  this  dis 
tinguished  hero  and  statesman  you  rely  concerning  another 
matter  alluded  to  in  your  article.  But  have  you  examined  or 
noticed  what  he  said  of  the  nature  of  the  General  Government, 
and  the  sovereignty  of  the  several  States,  in  his  farewell  address, 
wherein,  among  many  other  of  the  same  sort,  these  most  perti 
nent  and  potent  words  occur  :  (Italics  mine.) 

"  From  the  extent  of  our  country,  its  diversified  interests, 
different  pursuits,  and  different  habits,  it  is  too  obvious  for 
argument,  that  a  single  consolidated  Government  would  be 
wholly  inadequate  to  watch  over  and  protect  its  interests,  and 
every  friend  of  our  Free  Institutions  should  be  always  prepared 
to  maintain,  unimpaired  and  in  full  vigor,  the  rights  and  sover 
eignty  of  the  States,  and  to  confine  the  action  of  the  General 
Government  strictly  to  the  sphere  of  its  appropriate  duties  ?  " 

If  so,  do  you  deny  the  authenticity  of  the  proof  adduced  ? 
And  if  not,  must  you  not  admit  that  even  General  Jackson, 
though  opposed  as  he  was  to*  the  doctrine  of  nullification,  yet 


STIR-REJOINDER  TO  "NEW  ERA."  223 

maintained  the  great  truth  in  our  history  of  the  sovereignty  of 
the  States? 

Without  extending  the  number  of  these  points  or  issues  of 
fact  on  which  rests  the  truth  of  history,  allow  me  now  barely 
to  add  that  if  you  have  examined  and  noticed  these  proofs,  to 
say  nothing  of  others,  then  I  do  not  understand  how  you  came 
to  say  in  your  comments  referred  to,  in  speaking  of  the  Con 
stitution  and  the  nature  of  the  Government  established  by  it, 
that  "  one  party  advocated  its  adoption  because  it  thus  provided 
for  a  consolidated  Government  of  the  People,  and  it  was  for 
this  identical  reason  that  the  other  opposed  it.  This  is  matter 
of  history  which  we  do  not  remember  ever  to  have  seen  con 
troverted,  and  when  controverted,  then  will  be  time  to  quote 
authorities," 

Now,  do  not  these  few  proofs  here  referred  to,  taken  from 
many  adduced  in  the  two  volumes,  plainly  show  that  the  Con 
stitution  was  adopted  because  it  was  not  the  "consolidated 
Government"  which  you  claim  it  to  be,  but  was  just  the 
"  Federal "  or  "  Confederated  Republic  "  which  it  is  shown  to 
be  in  the  "  two  volumes,"  and  that  an  overwhelming  majority 
of  all  parties,  at  the  time,  if  they  had  regarded  it  as  the  thing 
you  now  represent  it  to  be,  would  have  united  in  its  utter  re 
pudiation  ? 

Then,  again,  if  you  have  not  examined  or  noticed  these 
proofs,  it  seems  to  me  most  of  your  intelligent  readers  will 
come  to  the  very  proper  conclusion  that  you  would  do  well  to 
study  more  closely  the  contents  of  a  book  before  undertaking 
to  pronounce  its  teachings  either  pernicious,  dangerous,  or  revo 
lutionary  ! 

Was  it,  however,  allow  me  also  to  ask  you,  "  a  pernicious, 
dangerous,  and  revolutionary  "  truth  to  utter,  when  Washing 
ton  proclaimed  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  was 
a  "Confederacy,"  or  " Confederated  Republic ?" 

If  not,  is  it  more  pernicious,  dangerous,  or  revolutionary  to 
promulgate  the  same  truth  now  than  it  was  then  ? 

Was  it  either  pernicious,  dangerous,  or  revolutionary  for 
General  Jackson  to  assert  the  fact  of  the  sovereignty  of  the 
States  under  the  Constitution ;  and  urge  its  maintenance  in  the 


224:  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

most  earnest  manner?  If  not,  is  it  more  pernicious,  dangerous, 
or  revolutionary  to  promulgate  the  same  truth,  and  for  the  same 
reasons,  now  than  it  was  then  f  Are  not  the  perils  of  "  a  single 
Consolidated  Government" — a  Central  Despotism — as  great 
now  as  they  were  then  f  Is  there  any  thing  in  the  "  two 
volumes"  more  pernicious,  dangerous,  or  revolutionary,  on 
this  subject,  than  General  Jackson's  own  solemn  warning, 
that  "  every  friend  of  our  Free  Institutions  should  le  always 
prepared  to  maintain  unimpaired  and  in  full  vigor  the  rights 
and  sovereignty  of  the  States  /  and  to  confine  the  action  of  tJie 
General  Government  strictly  to  the  sphere  of  its  appropriate 
duties?" 

Away,  my  dear  sir,  with  the  chimera  of  "  Secession  Re 
vived  1 "  Give  yourself  no  uneasiness  from  any  teachings  of 
mine  on  that  score.  The  right  of  a  mode  of  redressing  griev 
ances  or  wrongs  of  any  sort,  and  the  policy  of  it,  are  very  dif 
ferent  questions,  and  present  very  different  considerations. 
Secession,  as  a  mode  of  redress  of  grievances  or  breaches  of  the 
Compact  between  the  States,  has  been  abandoned,  in  good 
faith,  and  I  doubt  not  forever  2  That  is,  indeed,  a  dead  issue  ! 
But  the  indestructible  right  upon  which  it  rested  can  and  will 
never  die.  It  was  abandoned,  not  because  of  the  want  of  right, 
but  because  of  its  impolicy  in  attaining  the  object  aimed  at,  by 
its  advocates  as  the  surest  and  safest  mode  of  escape  from  the 
usurpations  of  Power.  In  the  2d  of  the  "  two  volumes  "  you 
refer  to,  on  pages  530-31,  you  will  see,  if  you  read  closely,  that 
in  my  judgment,  one  of  its  greatest  errors  in  policy,  at  the 
time  it  was  resorted  to,  consisted  in  "  the  separation  which 
it  necessarily  produced  between  the  real  friends  of  the  prin 
ciples  of  the  Constitution,  North  and  South,  in  a  common 
contest  between  them  and  the  Centralists.  It  was,  in  truth,  a 
great  battle — the  Political  Armageddon  of  America — in  which 
there  should  have  been  a  concentration  of  forces,  instead  of 
that  dispersion  which  of  necessity  resulted  from  secession." 

This  Political  Armageddon  of  America  is  yet  to  be  decided 
— not  on  battle-fields,  but  in  the  Forum,  on  the  Hustings,  by 
the  Press,  and  at  the  Polls !  The  contest  is  now  waging,  and 
in  it  is  involved  the  greatest  living  issue  at  present  before  the 


SUE-REJOINDER  TO   "NEW  ERA."  225 

people  of  every  State  and  Section,  and  the  greatest  that  will 
be  before  them  for  years  to  come.  It  is  the  issue,  on  one  side, 
of  Consolidation — Centralism — Empire  ;  and,  on  the  other  the 
Sovereign  Right  of  Local  Self-government  by  the  Peoples  of 
the  several  States  of  this  Continent. 

To  achieve  the  victory  of  this  contest  the  friends  of  our  Free 
Institutions  in  every  State  of  our  Federal  Union,  from  Maine 
to  California,  from  the  Gulfs  to  the  Lakes,  must  make  common 
cause.  Joint  efforts  are  necessary  for  separate  success.  As 
their  common  ancestors  united  in  1776  under  lead  of  "Washing 
ton  to  establish  this  great  right,  and  then  again  in  1800,  under 
Jefferson  to  save  it,  when  imperiled ;  so  now  they  must  unite 
in  patriotic  action  for  its  rescue  and  perpetuation.  For  success 
in  the  struggle  they  will  need  no  weapons  but  the  truths  of  his 
tory — the  teachings  of  the  Fathers — and  the  parting  admoni 
tions  of  Jackson. 

Yours,  most  respectfully, 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 
15 


APPENDIX. 


[THE  following  articles,  in  Review  of  the  "  Reconstruction  Measures  " 
of  Congress,  being  entirely  germain  to  the  subjects  discussed  in  this  vol 
ume,  and  covering  important  points  not  therein  embraced,  are  deemed  by 
the  author  as  very  fit  material  for  a  very  appropriate  Appendix  to  the 
foregoing  Supplement  to  the  "  Constitutional  View  of  the  War  between 
the  States ;  its  Causes,  Character,  Conduct,  and  Results." 

In  reference  to  these  appended  articles,  it  need  only  be  stated  that  the 
two  speeches  were  by  Hon.  Linton  Stephens  under  the  following  circum 
stances  : 

The  first  was  delivered  in  the  city  of  Macon,  Georgia,  on  the  23d  of 
January,  1871,  in  his  own  defence,  before  a  Federal  Commissioner,  against 
a  criminal  charge  founded  upon  an  alleged  violation  of  the  "  Enforce 
ment  Act"  of  1870.  The  final  result  of  the  case  was  an  abandonment  of 
the  prosecution  by  the  Government. 

The  second  was  addressed  to  a  public  audience  in  the  city  of  Augusta, 
Georgia,  on  the  18th  of  February,  1871. 

The  letter  of  Ex-Governor  Jenkins  to  Governor  Smith  (who  now  occu 
pies  the  Gubernatorial  Chair  of  Georgia)  requires  no  explanation.  This 
restoration  of  the  Seal  of  the  Executive  Department  of  the  State,  which 
has  been  heroically  saved  from  the  hands  of  usurpers,  has  its  historical 
parallel  in  the  restoration  of  their  "  old  charter"  to  the  people  of  Connec 
ticut,  in  1688,  after  its  safe  preservation  for  some  time  in  the  "  old  oak  " 
during  the  repression  of  their  rightful  Government  by  the  infamous  An 
dres  and  his  military  bands.] 


LINTON  STEPHENS  ON  KECONSTRUCTION.  227 

I. 

SPEECH  OF  HON.  LINTON  STEPHENS,  IN  MACON,  GEORGIA,  ON  THE 
"  RECONSTRUCTION  MEASURES,"  AND  THE  "  ENFORCEMENT 
ACT"  OF  1870,  DELIVERED  23o  OF  JANUARY,  1871. 

May  it  please  the  Court :  I  know  full  well  that,  if  your 
Honor  is  not  superior  to  the  average  of  poor  human  nature, 
you  will  find  it  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  give  my  defence 
in  this  case  an  impartial  consideration,  and  an  honest  decision. 
The  prosecution  against  me  is  founded  on  the  course  which  I 
took  in  the  recent  political  election,  which  resulted  in  a  victory 
for  my  party,  and  a  defeat  for  yours.  It  is  also  directly  in  the 
line  of  an  assault  which  was  lately  made  against  me  in  the 
newspapers,  by  the  official  head  of  your  party  in  this  State.  I, 
therefore,  recognize  in  this-  case  a  political  prosecution,  just  as 
distinctly  as  I  recognize  in  my  judge  a  most  zealous  and  deter 
mined  political  opponent.  Yet,  sir,  there  are  other  considera 
tions  which  encourage  me  to  hope  that  I  may  obtain,  even  from 
you,  that  decision  which  is  demanded  by  justice  and  by  the 
laws.  From  the  personal  knowledge  of  you,  which  I  have  ac 
quired  since  the  beginning  of  this  trial,  I  have  discovered  that 
you  are  a  man  of  decided  intelligence  ;  and  I  am  told  that  you 
are  a  man  of  courage.  I  am  also  told  that  you,  yourself,  have 
been,  in  some  instances,  a  victim  of  political  persecution,  and 
an  object  of  unjust  obloquy.  Surely,  such  a  man,  with  such  an 
experience,  ought  to  give  a  fair  hearing  to  one  whose  only  fault 
is  not  any  wrong  which  he  has  committed  against  the  laws,  but  j 
the  damage  which  he  has  inflicted  upon  a  political  party.  My 
greatest  encouragement,  however,  is  derived  from  my  confi 
dence  in  the  lawfulness  of  my  conduct,  and  the  power  of  truth. 
To  truth,  bravely  upheld,  belongs  a  triumph  which  cannot  be 
defeated,  nor  long  delayed,  not  even  by  the  intensest  prejudices 
of  partisan  strife.  I  am  strengthened,  too,  in  the  advocacy  of 
truth  on  this  occasion  by  the  consciousness  that,  in  defending 
myself,  I  shall  be  but  defending  principles  which  are  dear  to 
every  American,  because  they  lie  at  the  foundation  of  the 


228  APPENDIX. 

whole  fabric  of  American  constitutional  liberty.  Nor,  sir,  un 
less  I  am  much  mistaken  in  the  estimate  which  I  have  formed 
of  your  character,  will  you  listen  to  my  defence  any  the  less 
favorably  because  of  the  frankness  and  boldness  with  which  I 
shall  present  it. 

I  am  accused  under  the  Enforcement  Act  of  Congress. 

My  first  'position  is,  that  this  whole  act  is  not  a  law,  but  a 
mere  legal  nullity. 

It  was  passed  with  the  professed  object  of  carrying  into 
effect  what  are  called  the  Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  Amend 
ments  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  depends  on 
their  validity  for  its  own. 

These  so-called  Amendments  are,  as  I  shall  now  proceed  to 
show,  not  true  Amendments  of  the  Constitution,  and  do  not 
form  any  part  of  that  sacred  instrument.  They  are  nothing  but 
usurpations  and  nullities,  having  no  validity  themselves,  and 
therefore  incapable  of  imparting  any  to  the  Enforcement  Act, 
or  to  any  other  act  whatsoever. 

I  take  occasion  to  say,  that  I  regard  the  Thirteenth  Amend 
ment,  abolishing  slavery,  as  clearly  distinguishable  from  the 
Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  so-called  Amendments,  in  the  man 
ner  both  of  its  proposal  and  of  its  ratification.  The  contrast  be 
tween  it  and  them  will  contribute  to  make  their  invalidity  all 
the  more  apparent.  It  is  true,  that  when  the  Thirteenth 
Amendment  was  proposed,  ten  States  of  the  Union  were  absent 
from  Congress ;  but  their  absence  was  voluntary,  and  therefore 
did  not  affect  the  validity  of  the  proposal.  It  is  true,  also,  that 
the  Legislatures  which  ratified  it  for  these  ten  States  had  their 
initiation  in  a  palpable  usurpation  of  power  on  the  part  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States ;  yet  it  is  also  unquestionably 
true,  that  they  were  elected  and  sustained  by  overwhelming 
majorities  of  the  true  constitutional  constituencies  of  the  States 
for  which  they  acted ;  they  rested  on  the  consent  of  the  people, 
or  constitutional  constituencies  of  the  States,  and  were  there 
fore  truly  "  Legislatures  of  the  States."  This  Amendment  was 
ratified  by  these  Legislatures  of  the  States  in  good  faith,  and 
in  conformity  with  the  almost  unanimous  wish  of  the  constitu 
tional  "  Peoples." 


LINTON  STEPHENS  ON  RECONSTRUCTION.  229 

How  different  is  the  case  of  the  Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth 
so-called  Amendments  !  If  these  are  parts  of  the  Constitution, 
I  ask  how  did  they  become  so  ?  Were  they  proposed  by  Con 
gress  in  a  constitutional  manner  ? 

In  framing  and  proposing  them  every  State  in  the  Union 
was  entitled,  by  the  express  terms  of  the  Constitution,  to  be 
represented  in  speech  and  vote  by  "  two  Senators  "  and  "  at 
least  one  Bepresentative."  But  ten  States  of  the  Union  were 
absent.  This  time  their  absence  was  not  voluntary  but  com 
pelled. — When  they  were  claiming  a  hearing  through  their  con 
stitutional  representatives  they  were  driven  away,  and  denied 
all  participation  in  framing  and  proposing  these  so-called 
Amendments!  Was  this  a  constitutional  mode  of  proposal? 
I  say,  it  was  an  unconstitutional  mode,  and  that  the  proposal 
was,  db  initio,  null  and  void. 

But  how  stands  the  ratification  of  these  so-called  Amend 
ments  ?  To  say  nothing  about  the  duress  of  bayonets  and  Con 
gressional  dictation,  under  which  the  ratification  was  forced 
through  the  ratifying  bodies  in  the  ten  Southern  States,  the 
great  question  is,  who  were  these  ratifying  bodies  ?  Were  they 
Legislatures  of  the  States  ?  They  were  not.  They  were  the 
creatures  of  notorious  and  avowed  Congressional  usurpation. 
They  were  elected,  not  by  the  constitutional  constituencies  of 
the  States,  but  by  constituencies  created  by  Congress,  not  only 
outside  of  the  Constitution,  but  in  palpable  violation  of  one  of 
its  express  provisions.  The  suffrage  or  political  power  of  the 
States  is  not  delegated  to  the  General  Government  by  the  Con 
stitution  ;  but  on  the  contrary,  its  reservation  by  the  States  is 
rendered  exceedingly  emphatic  by  that  provision  of  the  Consti 
tution  which,  instead  of  creating  a  constituency  to  elect  its  own 
officers — President,  Yice-President,  and  members  of  Congress — 
adopts  the  constituencies  of  the  States,  as  regulated  by  the 
States  themselves,  for  the  election  of  the  most  numerous  branch 
of  their  own  Legislatures. 

Ten  of  the  ratifications,  which  were  falsely  counted  in  favor 
of  these  miscalled  Amendments  as  ratifications  by  Legislatures 
of  States,  were  only  ratifications  by  bodies  which  had  their  ori 
gin  in  Congressional  usurpation,  were  elected  by  illegal  con- 


230  APPENDIX. 

stituencies  unknown  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
or  the  Constitutions  of  the  States,  and  were  organized  and 
manipulated  under  the  control  of  military  commanders  who 
claimed  and  exercised  the  jurisdiction  of  passing  upon  the  elec 
tion  and  qualification  of  their  members.  Can  these  joint  prod 
ucts  of  usurpation,  fraud,  and  force  be  palmed  off  as  Legislatures 
of  States  ?  Can  ratifications  by  them  be  accepted  as  ratifications 
by  Legislatures  of  States  ?  Can  falsehood  thus  be  converted 
into  truth,  by  the  thimble-rigging  of  Presidential  proclama 
tions  ?  These  bodies  were,  indeed,  set  up  by  their  usurping 
creators,  as  Legislatures  for  and  over  States;  but  until  the 
known  truth  of  recent  history  can  be  blotted  out  by  the  mere 
power  of  shameless  assertion,  they  cannot  be  recognized  as 
Legislatures  of  States.  The  Parliament  of  Great  Britain  is  a 
Legislature  for  and  over  poor,  down-trodden  Ireland ;  but  what 
Irishman  will  ever  recognize  it  as  the  Legislature  of  Ireland  ! 

The  false,  spurious,  and  revolutionary  character  of  these 
ratifying  bodies  is  rendered  still  more  glaring  by  the  fact  that, 
supported  by  the  bayonet,  they  subverted,  or  rather  repressed, 
the  true,  legitimate  Legislatures  of  all  the  States  where  recon 
struction  was  applied.  That  such  Legislatures  existed  in  these 
States,  and  are  indeed  still  existing,  is  demonstrable  from  the 
facts  viewed  in  the  light  of  either  of  the  two  theories  of  seces 
sion — that  of  its  validity  or  invalidity.  On  either  theory  the 
seceding  States  remained  States.  On  the  one  theory  they  were 
States  out  of  the  Union ;  on  the  other,  they  have  remained  all 
the  while  States  in  the  Union.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  in  the  recent  case  of  White  vs.  Texas,  speaking 
through  Mr.  Chief  Justice  Chase,  held  that  secession  was  in 
valid,  and  that  the  States  which  had  attempted  it  remained  and 
still  are  States  in  the  Union. 

A  State  is  not  a  disorganized  mass  of  people.  It  is  an  or 
ganized  political  body.  It  must  have  a  Constitution  of  some 
sort,  written  or  traditional.  Being  an  organized  body,  it  must 
have  a  law  of  organization  or  composition  or  Constitution,  de 
fining  the  depositary  of  its  political  power.  "Where  there  is  no 
such  constitutional  or  constituting  or  organizing  or  fundamen 
tal  law,  there  can  be  no  organization — no  /State.  These  ten 


LINTON  STEPHENS  ON  RECONSTRUCTION.  231 

States,  then,  which  seceded  or  attempted  to  secede  (as  the  one 
theory  or  the  other  may  be  held),  have  all  the  while  had  Con 
stitutions.  In  point  of  fact,  each  of  these  has  ever  been  a  written 
Constitution,  giving  the  ballot  to  defined  classes  of  citizens  who 
are  known  as  the  constitutional  constituency  of  the  State.  This 
constitutional  constituency  is  entrusted  by  each  of  these  Consti 
tutions  with  power  over  the  Constitution  itself,  in  modifying  or 
changing  it,  and  of  course  in  modifying  or  changing  the  organi 
zation  or  composition  of  the  constitutional  constituency.  This 
constitutional  constituency  is  the  depositary  of  the  highest  po 
litical  power  of  the  State.  Any  change  made  in  the  Constitu 
tion  or  organization  of  the  State,  or  in  the  composition  of  the 
constitutional  constituency,  as  it  may  exist  at  any  time,  without 
the  concurrent  action  of  the  constitutional  constituency  itself,  is 
revolution.  It  is  disorganization.  It  is  the  subversion  or  sup 
pression  (as  it  may  prove  permanent  or  temporary)  of  one  or 
ganization,  and  the  substitution  of  another.  It  is  the  abolition 
(permanent  or  temporary)  of  the  old  State,  and  the  introduction 
of  a  new  one. 

Each  of  these  ten  States,  in  1865,  at  the  close  of  the  war, 
being  then  a  State,  had  a  Constitution  and  a  constitutional  con 
stituency  linked  back  by  unbroken  succession  to  the  Constitu 
tion  and  constitutional  constituency  as  they  existed  before 
secession.  Secession  made  no  break  in  the  chain.  The  pro 
vision  which  was  put  in  the  Constitution  at  the  time  of  seces 
sion,  connecting  the  State  with  the  Confederate  States  instead 
of  with  the  United  States  as  its  Federal  head,  is  wholly  im 
material  to  the  present  purpose.  Oh  the  one  theory  it  was 
simply  void,  and  left  the  organization  of  the  State,  the  Constitu 
tion,  and  the  constitutional  constituency  intact.  On  the  other 
theory,  being  valid,  it  modified  but  did  not  impair  the  integrity 
of  the  State  organization.  All  this  follows  from,  or  rather  is 
comprehended  in,  the  one  proposition  that  these  ten  States 
have  never  lost  their  character  as  States. 

Each  of  these  ten  States  being  a  State  at  the  close  of  the  war 
in  1865,  stands  now  de  jure  just  as  it  stood  then ;  unless  it  has 
since  that  time  been  changed  by  the  action  of  its  constitutional 
constituency.  I  think  each  of  them  was  so  changed  in  the  lat- 


232  APPEKDIX. 

ter  part  of  that  same  year.  In  each  of  them  a  Convention  was 
elected  by  a  large  and  unquestionable  majority  of  the  constitu 
tional  constituency  (although  a  portion  of  them  were  excluded 
from  voting)  for  the  purpose  of  modifying  the  Constitution. 
These  Conventions  repealed  the  ordinance  of  secession,  abol 
ished  slavery,  and  made  some  other  changes  in  the  several 
Constitutions,  but  (in  most  of  the  States)  left  the  constitutional 
constituencies  just  as  they  stood  before.  In  conformity  with 
the  Constitutions,  as  last  modified  by  those  Conventions,  each 
of  the  States  was  speedily  provided  with  a  complete  govern 
ment,  consisting  of  a  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  depart 
ment.  It  was  by  the  Legislatures  thus  formed  that  the  Thir 
teenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
abolishing  slavery,  was  ratified. 

Since  that  time  no  change  has  been  made  in  the  organiza 
tion  of  any  of  these  States,  with  the  cooperation  or  concurrence 
of  the  constitutional  constituencies.  Only  very  small  minorities 
of  the  constitutional  constituencies  have  cooperated  in  the  work 
of  reconstruction.  It  is  a  notorious  and  unquestionable  fact, 
that  an  overwhelming  majority  of  them  in  each  of  the  States 
have  been  steadily  and  unswervingly  opposed  to  it,  and  have 
voted  against  it,  whenever  they  have  voted  at  all. 

The  clear  result,  in  my  judgment,  is  that  each  of  these 
States  now  stands  de  jure  just  as  she  was  left  by  the  action  of 
her  Convention  in  1865,  with  a  complete  government,  formed 
under  the  Constitution  of  that  year,  including  a  Legislature 
which  still  constitutionally  exists,  and  is  capable  of  assembling 
any  day,  if  it  were  only  allowed  to  do  so  by  the  withdrawal  of 
the  bayonet.  But  she  stands  de  facto  suppressed,  by  a  govern 
ment  originated  and  imposed  on  her  by  an  external  power,  and 
supported  alone  by  the  bayonet.  Such  a  government  is  the 
embodiment  of  anti-republicanism  and  despotism.  Under  just 
such  a  government  Ireland  is  writhing  and  Poland  is  crushed. 

Is  it  not  now  demonstrated  that  the  bodies  which  ratified  the 
so-called1  Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  Amendments,  in  the  name 
of  these  ten  States,  were  the  revolutionary  products  of  external 
force  and  fraud,  displacing  the  true  Legislatures  which  alone 
could  have  given  a  constitutional  ratification  ? 


LINTON  STEPHENS  OX  RECONSTRUCTION,  233 

These  so-called  amendments,  then,  have  been  neither  con 
stitutionally  proposed  nor  constitutionally  ratified.  How  can 
they  form  parts  of  the  Constitution  ? 

A  successful  answer  to  this  question  would  long  ago  have 
brought  that  peace  and  harmony  which  can  never  come  from 
might  overbearing  right.  Instead  of  giving  such  an  answer, 
the  authors  of  these  measures  have  sought  to  drown  reason  and 
argument  in  clamorous  charges  of  violence  and  revolution 
against  the  victims,  not  the  perpetrators,  of  those  crimes. 

But  an  answer  has  at  last  been  attempted  from  an  unex 
pected  quarter.  Strangely  enough,  it  comes  from  one  who  has 
greatly  distinguished  himself  by  the  vigor  and  ability  with 
which  he  has  denounced  the  whole  scheme  of  reconstruction  as 
a  revolutionary  usurpation  and  nullity.  And,  still  more  strange 
ly,  he  adheres  to  that  denunciation,  while  now  arguing  that 
these  so-called  amendments,  the  creatures  and  culminating 
points  of  that  reconstruction  scheme,  are  valid  parts  of  the  Con 
stitution.  Such  a  conclusion  from  such  a  beginning!  And  yet 
he  is  hailed  by  his  new  allies  as  a  very  Daniel  come  unto  judg 
ment.  They  were  in  a  sore  strait  for  an  argument. 

He  says  these  so-called  amendments  have  become  parts  of 
the  Constitution,  because  they  have  been  proclaimed  as  such, 
by  the  power  which,  under  the  Constitution,  has  the  "jurisdic 
tion  "  to  proclaim  amendments. 

There  has  been  much  said,  sir,  about  issues  that  are 
"  dead ; "  surely  here  is  one  that  is  not  only  alive  but  very  live 
ly.  Let  Americans  hear  and  mark  it !  The  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  can  be  changed,  can  be  subverted  by  Presiden 
tial  proclamation ! !  I  once  knew  a  man  whose  motto  was  that 
a  lie,  well  told,  was  better  than  the  truth,  because,  he  said, 
truth  was  a  stubborn,  unmanageable  thing,  but  a  lie  in  the 
hands  of  a  genius  could  be  fitted  exactly  to  the  exigencies  of 
the  case.  But  even  he  admitted  that  the  lie  must  be  well  told, 
or  it  would  not  serve.  If  it  should  appear  to  be  a  lie,  it 
would  be  turned  from  a  thing  of  power  into  a  thing  for  con 
tempt.  There  has  been  progress,  sir,  since  that  man  taught. 
It  is  now  discovered  that  a  known,  proven  lie  is  as  good  as  the 
truth,  provided  it  can  only  get  "  proclaimed  "  by  a  power  hav- 


234:  APPENDIX. 

ing  "jurisdiction"  to  proclaim  it! !  I,  sir,  know  of  no  power 
— either  on  the  earth,  or  above  it,  or  nnder  it — that  has  "juris 
diction"  to  "proclaim"  LIES!  !  Nay,  sir,  I  know  of  no  power 
which  has  jurisdiction  to  proclaim  amendments  to  the  Constitu 
tion.  According  to  my  reading  of  that  instrument,  amend 
ments  constitutionally  proposed  "  shall  be  valid  to  all  intents 
and  purposes  as  part  of  the  Constitution,  when  ratified  by  the 
Legislatures  of  three-fourths  of  the  several  States,  or  by  Con 
ventions  in  three-fourths  thereof,  as  the  one  or  the  other  mode 
of  ratification  may  be  proposed  by  the  Congress."  The  ratifi 
cation  by  three-fourths  of  the  States,  acting  through  their  Legis 
latures  or  their  Conventions,  sets  the  seal  of  validity  on  the 
amendment  and  makes  it  a  part  of  the  Constitution.  Nothing 
else  can  do  it.  It  must  be  a  true  ratification,  by  a  true  Legis 
lature,  or  a  true  Convention  of  the  State.  A  false  ratification 
by  a  true  Legislature,  of  the  State  will  not  do.  A  true  ratifica 
tion  by  a  spurious  Legislature  will  not  do.  The  validity  of  the 
amendment,  and  its  authority  as  a  part  of  the  Constitution,  are 
made  to  depend  upon  the  historic  truth  of  its  ratification  as  re 
quired  by  the  Constitution.  Proclamations  of  falsehoods  from 
Presidents,  or  from  anybody  else,  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
subject.  This  is  plain  doctrine,  drawn  from  the  Constitution 
itself.  The  validity  of  the  Constitution  in  all  its  parts  depends 
upon  the  facts  of  their  history. 

But,  according  to  this  new  discovery,  the  President  of  the 
United  States  can  subvert  the  whole  Constitution,  and  make 
himself  a  legal  and  valid  autocrat,  by  simply  "  proclaiming " 
that  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  to  that  effect  has  been 
proposed  by  two-thirds  of  each  house  of  Congress,  and  ratified 
by  the  Legislatures  of  three-fourths  of  the  States ;  although  it 
may  be  known  of  all  men  that  there  is  not  one  word  of  truth  in 
the  proclamation.  The  President  of  the  United  States  can 
legally  convert  himself  into  an  autocrat  by  his  own  proclama 
tion.  Theories  are  quickly  put  into  practice  in  these  days.  Let 
the  country  beware ! ! 

We  are  also  told  by  this  new  Daniel,  not  only  that  the  usur 
pation  has  become  obligatory  by  its  success,  but  there  is  no 
hope  of  getting  rid  of  it :  for  he  says  it  cannot  be  changed  with- 


UNION  STEPHENS  ON  RECONSTRUCTION.  235 

out  another  amendment,  ratified  by  three-fourths  of  the  States, 
and  that  there  is  no  prospect  of  getting  these  three-fourths. 
Wonderful !  Why,  he  himself  has  taught  us  that  the  whole 
thing  may  be  accomplished  by  a  Presidential  proclamation. 
We  have  only  to  elect  a  Democratic  President,  and  let  him 
"  proclaim  "  that  a  new  amendment,  abolishing  the  Fourteenth 
and  Fifteenth,  has  been  duly  proposed  and  duly  ratified ;  and 
the  thing  is  done.  That,  sir,  would  be  the  way  taught  by  this 
new  light ;  but  it  would  never  be  my  way.  I  do  not  propose 
to  walk  in  the  ways  of  falsehood.  I  prefer  truth  ;  because  it  is 
nobler,  grander.  I  believe  also  that,  when  it  is  supported  by 
true  and  bold  men,  it  is  always  more  powerful.  My  way  would 
be  to  elect  a  Democratic  President ;  and  let  him  treat  the 
usurpation  as  a  usurpation  and  a  nullity ;  and  let  him  with 
draw  the  bayonet,  and  "proclaim"  that  the  revolutionary 
governments  in  these  ten  States  would  not  be  supported  by 
him,  but  that  the  constitutional  Republican  Governments  which 
now  exist  here  would  be  left  free  to  rise  from  their  state  of 
forcible  repression,  and  do  their  natural  and  legitimate  work 
of  true  restoration,  real  peace,  sincere  and  cordial  fraternity. 
The  whole  problem  is  solved  by  the  simple  withdrawal  of  the 
bayonet. 

I  have  now  shown  that  the  Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth 
Amendments  do  not  form  any  part  of  the  Constitution ;  and 
thus  have  made  good  my  first  position,  that  the  whole  Enforce 
ment  Act,  which  depends  solely  upon  them  for  its  validity,  is 
not  a  law,  but  a  mere  legal  nullity. 

My  second  position  is  that,  even  if  the  so-called  Fourteenth 
and  Fifteenth  Amendments  were  valid,  yet  all  those  parts  of 
the  Enforcement  Act  claimed  as  applicable  to  my  case  are  ut 
terly  "  outside  "  of  them,  and  (being  confessedly  outside  of  the 
Constitution,  apart  from  them)  are  unconstitutional,  and  not 
binding  as  law. 

The  Fourteenth  Amendment,  and  the  small  part  of  the 
Enforcement  Act  relating  to  it,  have  no  relevancy  to  this  pros 
ecution,  and  I  shall  say  nothing  further  about  them. 

Those  parts  of  the  Act  claimed  as  applicable  to  niy  case,  rest 
solely  upon  the  Fifteenth  for  their  validity ;  and,  in  order  to 


236  APPENDIX. 

see  whether  they  are  outside  of  it  or  not,  it  becomes  necessary 
to  know  what  are  the  terms  and  extent  of  that  Amendment. 

The  effect  of  its  terms  is  strangely  misapprehended.  It 
seems  to  be  regarded  as  a  thing  which,  by  its  terms,  secures  the 
right  of  suffrage  to  the  negro,  and  empowers  Congress  to  en 
force  that  right.  This  is  a  total  and  most  dangerous  mistake. 
Here  is  the  Amendment.  It  is  not  longer  than  the  first  joint 
of  my  little  finger : 

"  SECTION  1.  The  right  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  to  vote  shall 
not  be  denied  or  abridged  by  the  United  States,  or  by  any  State,  on  ac 
count  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude. 

"  SEC.  2.  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce  this  article  by  ap 
propriate  legislation." 

This  is  the  whole  of  it.  K"ow,  sir,  I  defy  refutation,  when 
I  affirm  that,  by  these  terms,  the  right  of  suffrage  is  not  con 
ferred  upon,  nor  secured  to,  any  person  or  class  of  persons 
whomsoever.  The  w^hole  is  simply  a  prohibition  on  the  United 
States,  and  the  several  States.  The  United  States,  in  legislat 
ing  for  the  District  of  Columbia  or  a  Territory,  and  the  several 
States  in  regulating  their  suffrage,  each  for  herself,  are  pro 
hibited  from  denying  it  to  anybody,  or  abridging  its  exercise 
on  either  one  of  the  three  grounds — race,  color,  or  previous 
condition  of  servitude — but  are  left  perfectly  free  to  abridge  it 
or  deny  it  on  any  other  ground  whatsoever — sex,  female  or 
male,  ignorance  or  intelligence,  poverty  or  wealth,  crime  or 
virtue,  or  any  other  of  an  innumerable  multitude  of  other 
grounds.  In  point  of  fact,  the  right  is  denied,  both  by  the 
United  States  and  by  each  one  of  the  several  States,  on  many 
of  these  other  grounds,  and  the  denial  is  enforced  under  heavy 
penalties,  not  only  by  the  laws  of  the  States,  but  by  this  very 
Enforcement  Act  itself.  To  say  that  the  right  is  conferred  on 
or  secured  to  anybody,  because  it  cannot  be  denied  for  any  one 
or  all  of  three  reasons  out  of  an  indefinite  number  of  possible 
and  usual  reasons,  is  simply  absurd.  As  well  say  that  a  plat 
of  ground  is  fenced  or  secured  from  intrusion  by  putting  a  wall 
on  one  of  its  many  sides,  leaving  all  the  oilier  sides  perfectly 
open.  A  right  is  not  conferred  or 'secured  by  a  law,  when  it 
can  be  denied  without  a  violation  of  that  law. 


LINTON  STEPHENS  ON  RECONSTRUCTION".  237 

This  brings  me  to  the  crucial  test  of  my  second  position. 
"Whether  I  have  violated  any  provisions  of  the  Enforcement 
Act  or  not,  it  is  at  least  certain  that  I  have  not  violated  the 
Fifteenth  Amendment.  It  is  affirmatively  proven,  by  the  tes 
timony  of  the  two  prosecutors  in  this  case — the  two  negro 
managers  of  election — that  I  did  not  object  to,  or  in  any  man 
ner  interfere  with,  any  vote  on  the  ground  of  either  race,  color, 
or  previous  condition  of  servitude.  It  is  manifest,  then,  that 
if  I  have  violated  any  part  or  parts  of  the  Enforcement  Act, 
such  part  or  parts  are  "  outside  "  of  the  Amendment,  and  un 
authorized  by  it,  since  I  have  not  violated  the  Amendment 
itself.  I  have  not  violated  the  Amendmant,  even  if  its  pro 
hibition  reached  private  citizens,  instead  of  being  confined, 
as  it  plainly  is,  to  the  United  States  and  the  States  sever 
ally. 

The  truth  is,  that  far  the  greater  part  of  the  Enforcement 
Act  is  "  outside  "  of  the  Amendments  which  it  professes  to  en 
force.  This  act  presents  another  live  and  very  lively  issue  to 
the  people  of  this  country ;  and  already  are  the  thunders  of 
opposition  heard  from  Republican  as  well  as  from  Democratic 
quarters.  Under  the  pretence  of  restraining  the  United  States 
and  the  several  States  from  denying  or  abridging  the  right  of 
suffrage  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of 
servitude,  this  act  takes  control  of  the  general  and  local  elec 
tions  in  all  the  States — seizing  the  whole  political  power  of  the 
country,  and  wielding  it  by  the  bayonet ;  and  fills  up  pages  of 
the  statute  book  with  new  offences  and  heavy  penalties  levelled, 
not  against  the  United  States  or  the  several  States,  or  their  offi 
cers  by  whom  alone  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  can  possibly  be 
violated,  but  against  private  citizens.  The  Alien  and  Sedition 
Acts,  which,  by  the  power  of  their  recoil,  exterminated  their 
authors,  were  not  equal  to  this  act  either  in  the  nakedness  or 
the  danger  of  their  usurpation.  If  this  act  shall  prevail  and 
abide  as  law,  then  our  heritage  of  local  self-government,  lost  to 
us,  will  pass  into  history,  and  there  stand  out  forever  a  glory  to 
the  noble  sires  who  wrung  it  from  one  tyranny,  and  a  shame  to 
the  degenerate  sons  who  surrendered  it  to  another. 

My  third  and  last  position  is,  that  even  if  the  Enforcment 


238  APPENDIX. 

Act  were  valid  in  all  its  parts,  yet  I  have  not  violated  any  one 
of  them.  I  am  accused  under  its  5th  and  19th  sections. 

The  5th  provides  a  penalty  against  "  preventing,  hindering, 
controlling,  or  intimidating,  or  attempting  to  prevent,  hinder, 
control,  or  intimidate,"  any  person  from  voting  "  to  whom  the 
right  of  suffrage  is  secured  or  guaranteed  by  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment."  I  have  already  demonstrated  that  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment  secures  or  guarantees  the  right  of  suffrage  to  no 
body  whomsoever.  It  is  impossible,  therefore,  that  I  am,  or 
that  anybody  ever  can  be,  guilty  under  that  section. 

But  again  :  the  testimony  utterly  fails  to  show  that  I  inter 
fered  in  any  way  with  the  voting  of  any  person  legally  entitled 
to  vote,  or,  indeed,  with  the  voting  of  any  person  whomsoever. 
It  was  incumbent  upon  the  prosecution  to  show  what  persons, 
if  any ;  and  that  they  were  persons  entitled  to  vote.  The  En 
forcement  Act  itself  inflicts  a  penalty  on  all  persons  who  vote 
illegally ;  and,  of  course,  cannot  intend  to  punish  the  preven 
tion  or  hindrance  of  illegal  voting.  The  attempted  proof  as  to 
my  interference  with  voters,  relates  to  four  persons  only.  It 
fails  to  show  that  either  one  of  the  four  was  a  person  entitled  to 
vote.  It  fails  to  show  that  three  of  them  did  not  actually  vote. 
It  fails  to  show  that  any  one  of  them  offered  to  vote  or  even 
desired  to  do  so.  It  fails  to  show  that  any  one  of  them  heard 
me  make  a  single  remark,  saw  me  do  a  single  act,  or  was  even 
in  my  presence  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  three 
days'  election. 

As  to  the  remark  which  I  made  to  a  small  crowd  about 
prosecuting  all  who  should  vote  without  having  paid  their 
taxes,  I  have  this  to  say  :  In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  shown  who 
composed  that  crowd,  nor  that  a  single  one  of  them  was  a  per 
son  entitled  to  vote.  In  the  next  place,  the  remark  was  a  law 
ful  one ;  for  it  was  simply  the  declaration  of  an  intention,  not 
to  interfere  with  legal  voters,  but  to  prosecute  criminals  ;  and 
therefore  cannot  be  tortured  into  a  threat  in  any  legal  or  crimi 
nal  sense  of  that  word.  A  threat,  to  be  criminal,  must  be  the 
declaration  of  an  intention  to  do  some  unlawful  act ;  and  it 
never  can  be  unlawful  to  appeal  to  the  laws. 

I  pass  to  the  charge,  under  the  19th  section,  that  I  inter- 


LINTON  STEPHENS   ON  KECONSTRUCTION.  239 

fered  with  the  managers  of  election  in  the  discharge  of  their 
duties,  by  causing  their  arrest  under  judicial  warrant.  That 
part  of  the  19th  section  which  is  invoked  against  me  is  in  these 
words :  "  Or  interfere  in  any  manner  with  any  officer  of  said 
elections  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties." 

My  first  answer  to  this  charge  is,  that  the  managers  were 
arrested,  not  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties,  but  in  the  viola 
tion  of  one  of  the  most  important  of  them — one  prescribed  not 
only  by  the  Constitution  of  the  State,  but  by  this  very  Enforce 
ment  Act  itself;  for  the  act  made  it  their  duty  to  reject  all 
illegal  votes,  and  provided  a  penalty  for  receiving  them.  These 
managers  had  received  and  were  still  receiving  the  votes  of 
persons  who  had  not  paid  their  taxes  of  the  year  next  preceding 
the  election,  as  required  by  the  Constitution  of  this  State.  The 
testimony  shows  that  this  fact  was  fully  proven,  and  not  denied 
by  them,  on  the  commitment  trial  before  the  magistrate.  The 
reply  to  it  then  was,  and  now  is,  not  a  denial,  but  a  justifica 
tion  on  two  grounds.  One  of  these  grounds  was,  that  the  oath 
which  they  had  taken,. under  the  Akerman  Election  Act,  re 
quired  them  to  let  every  person  vote,  who  was  of  apparent  full 
age,  was  a  resident  of  the  county,  and  had  not  previously  voted 
in  that  election.  They  said  then,  and  it  is  now  said  again  here, 
that  they  could  not  inquire  into  the  non-payment  of  taxes  or 
any  other  Constitutional  disqualification  for  voting,  except  only 
non-age,  non-residence,  and  previous  voting  in  that  election. 
And  yet,  a  man  who  was  of  full  age,  and  a  resident  of  the 
county,  and  who  had  not  previously  voted,  was  excluded  by 
these  same  managers  on  the  ground  that  he  was  a  convicted 
felon.  Their  own  action  in  excluding  the  felon  is  utterly  in 
consistent  with  their  construction  of  the  obligation  of  their  oath. 
The  oath,  as  construed  by  them,  and  now  construed  here 
by  the  prosecuting  attorney,  is  in  plain  conflict  with  the  Con 
stitution,  and  is,  therefore,  void,  and  could  not  relieve  them 
from  their  Constitutional  duty  to  exclude  all  who  had  not  paid 
their  taxes.  The  first  ground  of  the  managers'  justification 
therefore  fails. 

Their  other  ground  was,  that  the  unpaid  tax  of  those  whom 
they  had  allowed  to  vote  without  payment  of  taxes,  was  only 


240  APPETOIX. 

poll  tax,  and  that  the  poll  tax  had  been  declared  by  an  act  of 
the  Legislature  to  be  illegal  and  unwarranted  by  the  Constitu 
tion,  and  its  further  collection  suspended. 

The  fact  that  it  was  only  poll  tax  does  not  appear  from  the 
evidence  before  your  Honor,  but  I  admit  it  to  be  true.  I  did 
not  come  here  to  quibble.  I  am  here  to  justify  my  conduct 
under  the  law,  on  the  truth  as  it  exists,  whether  proven  here  or 
not.  My  answer  is,  that  this  declaratory  act  of  the  Legislature 
is  false,  unconstitutional,  null  and  void.  The  act  is  but  the 
opinion  of  the  Legislature,  concerning  the  constitutionality  of  a 
previous  act  of  1869,  imposing  the  poll  tax  for  that  year.  That 
act  is  before  me,  imposing  a  poll  tax  of  one  dollar  per  head  "  for 
educational  purposes,"  using  the  very  words  which  are  used  by 
the  Constitution  itself  in  defining  the  purpose  for  which  poll 
taxes  may  be  imposed.  Now,  sir,  the  question  which  I  ask  is, 
what  it  is  that  makes  Ms  act  "  illegal "  or  unwarranted  by  the 
Constitution  ?  Surely,  it  is  not  made  so  by  the  subsequent  dec 
laration  of  the  Legislature,  put  forth  just  before  the  election, 
to  serve  a  palpable,  fraudulent,  party  purpose. 

The  Legislature  is  not  a  Court ;  but  on  the  contrary  it  is 
expressly  prohibited  by  the  Constitution  from  exercising  judi 
cial  functions,  and  its  declarations  concerning  the  constitutional 
ity  of  Legislative  acts,  have  no  more  authority  than  those  of 
private  citizens.  The  single  question,  then,  is  whether  the 
declaration  in  this  case  is  true.  The  Legislature  assigned  its 
reason  for  the  opinion  it  gave.  What  is  that  reason  ?  It  is 
that  the  Constitution  limits  the  imposition  of  poll  taxes  to 
educational  purposes ;  and  that  when  the  poll  tax  in  question 
was  imposed,  there  was  no  system  of  common  schools  or  educa 
tional  purpose  to  which  it  could  be  applied.  Therefore,  they 
said  its  imposition  was  "  illegal  and  unwarranted  by  the  Con 
stitution."  They  said  it  was  unwarranted  by  the  Constitution 
to  provide  the  money  before  organizing  the  schools  to  which 
the  money  was  to  be  applied ;  that  is  to  say,  the  only  Consti 
tutional  way  to  organize  the  schools  was  to  go  in  debt  for 
them !  I  lack  words,  sir,  to  properly  characterize  the  silliness 
of  this  reason. 

But,  curiously  enough,  the  Constitution  itself  took  the  very 


LDTTON  STEPHENS  ON  EECONSTRUCTIOK  241 

course,  which  these  sapient  legislators  declared  to  be  illegal  and 
unwarranted  by  the  Constitution.  It  provided  money  and 
devoted  it  to  these  very  Common  Schools,  which  were  still  in 
the  womb  of  the  future  at  the  time  of  its  adoption.  It  dedicated 
to  that  purpose  the  whole  educational  fund  which  was  then  on 
hand.  Therefore,  I  say,  this  declaratory  act  is  not  only  false, 
but  is  in  the  very  teeth  of  the  Constitution  itself.  Mark  you, 
sir,  it  did  not  repeal  nor  attempt  to  repeal  the  poll  tax  ;  it  only 
suspended  its  collection.  But,  I  say,  if  it  had  been  a  repeal  in 
terms,  instead  of  a  mere  suspension,  it  could  not  change  the 
case,  as  to  the  right  of  a  person  to  vote  without  having  paid  the 
tax.  The  Constitutional  requirement  is,  that  "he  shall  have 
paid  all  taxes  which  may  have  been  required  of  him,  and  which 
he  may  have  had  an  opportunity  of  paying  agreeably  to  law  for 
the  year  next  preceding  the  election."  The  poll  tax  was  re 
quired  in  April,  1869,  and  continued  to  be  required,  up  to  the 
passage  of  the  aforesaid  false  declaratory  act,  in  October,  1870 
— a  year  and  a-half.  During  all  that  period  tax-payers  had 
"  opportunity  "  to  pay  it.  On  the  day  of  the  election,  then, 
any  man  who  had  not  paid  his  poll  tax  for  18G9,  stood  in  the 
position  of  not  having  paid  a  tax  which  had  been  required  of 
him,  and  which  he  had  had  very  many  opportunities  of  paying 
agreeably  to  law.  He  stood  clearly  within  the  letter  of  the 
Constitutional  disqualification  for  voting.  He  stood  also  within 
its  reason  and  spirit,  for  its  true  intention  was  to  discriminate 
against  the  citizen  who  should  not  have  discharged  a  public 
duty  for  the  year  next  preceding  the  election.  Nothing  but 
payment  could  remove  from  him  the  character  of  a  public  delin 
quent.  Legislative  remission  of  the  tax  cannot  serve  the  pur 
pose,  for  he  still  stands  after  that  as  a  man  who  has  failed  in  a 
piiblio  duty.  The  most  that  can  be  said  for  him  is,  that  after 
the  repeal,  the  tax  ceased  to  be  required  of  him ;  but  the  only 
material  facts — that  it  had  ~been  required,  and  could  have  been 
paid,  but  had  not  been  paid — remain  unaltered. 

The  managers,  then,  in  receiving  the  votes  of  persons  who 

had  not  paid  their  poll  tax,  were  not  in  "the  discharge  of  their 

duties."     Whether  they  thought  so,  is  not  the  question.     If  they 

were  really  wrong,  then  I  was  right,  and  surely  I  am  not  to  be 

16 


APPENDIX. 

punished  for  ~being  right.  There  was  no  interference  with  them 
in  the  discharge  of  their  duties. 

But  again :  even  if  I  were  wrong  in  the  opinion  which  I 
entertained  of  their  duty,  yet  I  did  not  interfere  with  them 
unlawfully.  The  whole  context  of  that  clause,  in  the  19th 
section,  under  which  I  am  accused,  shows  that  the  interference 
contemplated  is  an  unlawful  interference  ;  especially  the  words 
which  come  immediately  after  it — "  or  by  any  of  such  means  or 
other  unlawful  means,"  etc.  This  word  u  other  "  shows  conclu 
sively,  that  all  the  means  contemplated  were  only  such  as  were 
of  an  unlawful  character.  This  would  be  implied  in  construing 
any  penal  statute,  even  if  it  were  not  expressed ;  for  the  univer 
sal  rule  of  construction  for  penal  statutes  is,  to  construe  strictly 
against  the  prosecution,  and  liberally  in  favor  of  the  accused. 
Is  it  possible  that  any  Judge  can  have  the  hardihood  to  hold 
that  it  was  the  intention  of  this  Enforcement  Act  to  impart  to 
managers  of  election  the  sacred  character  of  Eastern  Brahmins, 
making  them  too  holy  to  be  touched  even  for  their  crimes? 
Surely  it  was  not  intended  to  give  them  greater  sanctity  than 
belongs  to  Peers  of  the  British  Parliament,  or  to  legislators  in 
our  own  country  while  engaged  in  legislation.  Notwithstand 
ing  all  the  high  privileges  accorded  to  them,  all  of  these  are 
subject  to  arrest  in  any  place,  at  any  moment,  under  a  warrant 
charging  breach  of  the  peace  or  felony.  "Was  it  intended  to 
protect  these  managers  from  immediate  accountability  for  all 
felonies  which  they  might  commit  during  three  whole  days  ? 
Until  this  shall  be  held  as  the  intention  of  the  Enforcement  Act, 
it  is  impossible  to  maintain  that  I  have  violated  it  in  any  par 
ticular  whatever. 

The  Constitution  declares  that  "  the  right  of  the  citizen  to 
appeal  to  the  courts  shall  never  be  impaired."  My  whole 
offence,  sir,  is  this :  that  I  appealed  to  a  court  of  competent  juris 
diction.  I  devoutly  believed  I  was  right  in  my  opinion  of  the 
law.  I  believe  so  now.  But,  whether  I  was  right  or  wrong  in 
my  opinion,  who  will  dare  to  say  that  I  was  wrong  in  testing 
that  opinion,  not  by  the  strong  hand,  but  by  appealing  to  a 
court  appointed  by  the  Constitution  for  the  very  purpose  of 
deciding  the  question  ?  That  court  decided  that  I  was  right : 


LI1STON  STEPHENS  ON  RECONSTRUCTION 

and  the  "  interference"  which  followed,  sir,  was  the  interference, 
not  of  myself,  but  of  the  law,  as  expounded  and  administered 
by  a  judicial  tribunal.  Moreover,  sir,  the  decision  of  that  tri 
bunal  stands  as  the  law  of  the  case,  until  it  shall  be  reversed 
according  to  law.  These  managers  were  charged  with  felony 
under  the  laws  of  this  State.  "Was  it  a  crime  for  me  to  seek  a 
judicial  inquiry  into  the  truth  or  probability  of  such  a  charge  \ 
I  suspect,  sir,  that  my  real  crime,  in  the  estimation  of  my  prose 
cutors,  is,  that  the  judicial  interposition  invoked  by  me  had 
the  effect  of  preventing  numerous  repetitions  of  a  crime  which 
would  have  done  signal  service  to  their  political  party . 

If  angry  power  demands  a  sacrifice  from  those  who  have 
thwarted  its  fraudulent  purposes,  I  feel  honored,  sir,  in  being 
selected  as  the  victim.  If  my  suffering  could  arouse  my  coun 
trymen  to  a  just  and  lofty  indignation  against  the  despotism 
which,  in  attacking  me,  is  but  assailing  law,  order,  and  consti 
tutional  government,  I  would  not  shrink  from  the  sacrifice, 
though  my  Hood  should  be  required  instead  of  my  liberty. 


II. 

SPEECH  OF  llox.  LIXTOX  STEPHENS,  AT  THE  CITY  HALL  ix  AU 
GUSTA,  GA.,  OX  THE  XIGHT  OF  THE  18TH  OF  FEBRUARY,  1871. 

FELLOW-CITIZEXS  :  It  was  one  of  the  wisest  sayings  of  a 
very  wise  man,  that  "  the  price  of  liberty  is  eternal  vigilance." 
This  maxim  of  wisdom  is  peculiarly  applicable  to  the  present 
time.  Ten  States  of  this  Union  are  to-night  under  revolution 
ary  governments,  originated  and  imposed  upon  them  by  an  ex 
ternal  power  and  supported  only  by  the  bayonet.  These  revo 
lutionary  governments  displace,  repress,  and,  for  the  time, 
suppress  the  regular,  republican,  constitutional  governments 
which  have  existed  here  all  the  while  with  an  unbroken  succes 
sion.  These  revolutionary  governments  are  in  the  hands  of 
carpet-baggers  and  scalawags,  who  treat  the  laws  of  their  own 
origination  with  ' disregardfiil  contempt ;  and,  under  the  forma 


APPENDIX. 

of  official  authority,  heap  upon  our  people  injuries  and  insults 
which  never  before  were  borne  by  men  born  and  bred  and  edu 
cated  in  the  principles  of  Liberty.  Shameless  plunder,  malig 
nant  slander,  corrupt  favoritism,  impunity  for  crimes  when 
committed  by  partisans  of  the  Government,  gigantic  extension 
of  the  credit  of  the  States  to  penniless  adventurers  who  come 
among  us  under  the  false  and  fraudulent  plea  of  "  developing 
our  resources,"  robbery  of  the  very  negroes  who  are  sought  to 
be  used  as  the  chief  instrument  of  upholding  this  gigantic  sys 
tem  of  revolutionary  fraud  and  force — these  are  the  fruits  of 
these  revolutionary  governments.  These  are  the  products  of 
reconstruction.  This  is  the  "  Situation ! "  And  yet  there  are 
those  who  say :  "  Let  us  accept  the  situation."  In  the  last 
presidential  campaign  we  heard  the  potent  words :  "  Let  us 
have  Peace."  They  had  their  effect.  They  carried  the  presi 
dential  election.  Yet  wise  men  then  knew,  as  all  men  now 
know,  that  they  were  a  delusion  and  a  snare.  "  Let  us  have 
peace !  "  It  meant  that  freemen,  with  their  necks  under  the 
heel  of  despotism,  should  remain  submissive  and  quiet.  Such 
a  peace  Turkey  has!  Such  a  peace  Poland  has!  Such  a 
peace,  thank  God,  Ireland  refuses  to  have  !  ~No  people  trained 
in  the  principles  of  liberty  will  ever  accept  of  any  peace  that 
is  not  founded  on  liberty.  Tyrants  and  despots  may  recon 
struct,  and  re-reconstruct,  and  re-re-reconstruct  ad  infinitum  / 
but  they  will  never  have  peace  from  American-born  freemen 
until  they  give  them  their  rights. 

What  is  really  expected  by  these  people  who  cry  "  Peace," 
and  "  Accept  the  Situation  ? "  Are  they  silly  enough  to  sup 
pose  that  there  can  be  any  pause  or  limit  to  the  career  of  usur 
pation  ?  Does  anybody  need  to  be  told  that  usurpation  is  in 
satiable?  "When  did  it  ever  cry — enough?  Concede  it  an 
inch,  and  it  will  always  take  an  ell. — The  only  way  for  earnest 
men  to  deal  with  usurpation  is  to  make  it  disgorge  all  its  ill- 
gotten  acquisitions.  These  peace  men  call  themselves  Con 
servatives.  To  conserve  means,  to  preserve  what  we  have. 
If  what  we  have  now  is  to  be  preserved,  it  will  prove  the  sure 
instrument  of  destroying  every  thing  that  is  worth  preserva 
tion.  The  present  status,  if  it  is  to  be  "  accepted,"  is  enough 


LINTON  STEPHENS  ON  RECONSTRUCTION.  245 

to  overthrow,  and  will  certainly  overthrow,  the  whole  system 
of  constitutional  government.  It  is  just  the  fulcrum  which 
Archimedes  wanted  to  move  the  world.  Let  the  usurpation ists 
retain  what  they  have  already  usurped,  and  their  whole  de 
sign  will  inevitably  be  accomplished. — The  wrongs  of  usurpa 
tions  have  been  borne  by  us  with  a  patience  which  has  only 
encouraged,  not  checked  its  career.  How  can  men  expect  it 
to  pause,  when  it  is  now  daily  going  on  with  new  and  Titanic 
strides  ?  The  same  revolutionary  violence  which  brought  forth 
the  Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  so-called  Amendments  of  the 
Constitution  is  daily  hatching  and  spawning  new  usurpations 
and  despotisms. — One  of  these  is  the  late  Enforcement  Act  of 
Congress,  which  professes  to  be  based  on  these  revolutionary 
amendments  for  its  authority.  It  has  but  little  relation  to  the 
Fourteenth,  being  chiefly  occupied  with  its  professed  intention 
to  carry  oiit  the  Fifteenth. 

If  this  Fifteenth  Amendment  were  granted  to  be  valid,  as 
it  is  not  and  never  should  be,  yet  a  consideration  of  its  terms 
will  show  how  immense  is  the  usurpation  of  the  Enforcement 
Act  in  the  professed  object  of  carrying  it  out. 

The  Fifteenth  Amendment  is  simply  a  prohibition  on  the 
United  States  and  the  several  States.  It  relates  to  nobody 
else,  touches  nobody  else.  It  prohibits  the  United  States  and 
the  several  States  (in  regulating  suffrage  in  cases  where  they 
respectively  have  the  right  to  regulate  it)  from  denying  it  or 
abridging  it  on  account  of  any  one  of  three  reasons:  race, 
color,  previous  condition  of  servitude  ;  leaving  them  perfectly 
free  to  abridge  it  or  deny  it  on  account  of  an  indefinite  number 
of  other  reasons.  It  is  simply  a  prohibition  upon  the  charac- 
acter  of  laws  which  may  be  passed  by  the  United  States  or 
the  several  States.  If  acts  are  passed  against  the  prohibition 
(granting  the  prohibition  itself  to  be  valid)  they  would  be 
void;  and  the  remedy — the  only  appropriate  or  admissible 
remedy — would  be  to  appeal  to  the  courts  and  have  them  pro 
nounced  void.  It  is  exactly  analogous  to  the  prohibitions  on 
the  States  in  the  original  Constitution — that  "  no  State  shall 
coin  money  ;  emit  bills  of  credit ;  make  anything  but  gold  and 
silver  coin  a  tender  in  payment  of  debts ;  pass  any  bill  of  at- 


246  APPEM)IX. 

tainder,  or  ex  post  facto  law,  or  law  impairing  the  obligation 
of  contracts,  or  grant  any  title  of  nobility."  "Who  ever 
dreamed  that  these  prohibitions  on  the  States  gave  Congress 
the  power  to  control  the  whole  subject  of  money,  and  seize  all 
the  money  of  the  country  into  its  own  hands ;  to  take  control 
of  the  whole  subject  of  credit,  and  regulate  it  in  all  its  ramifi 
cations  ;  to  take  charge  of  the  whole  subject  of  debts,  and  the 
whole  subject  of  bills  of  attainder,  and  ex  post  facto  laws  ;  and 
the  whole  subject  of  contracts ;  and  the  whole  subject  of  titles 
of  nobility  ?  "Who  ever  dreamed  that  Congress  could  enforce 
these  prohibitions  on  States  by  heavy  penal  statutes  against 
private  citizens  ?  Who  ever  dreamed  that  Congress  could  en 
force  the  prohibition  against  State  laws  impairing  the  obliga 
tion  of  contracts,  by  making  it  a  felony  for  any  citizen  to  seek 
the  benefit  of  relief  acts  passed  by  the  States  ?  Nay,  more. 
Is  this  prohibition  against  denying  or  abridging  the  right  of 
suffrage  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of 
servitude,  any  more  obligatory,  or  does  it  confer  upon  Congress 
any  more  power  than  the  provision  in  the  original  Constitu 
tion  defining  who  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  for  President.  Vice- 

O  / 

President,  and  members  of  Congress,  making  them  the  same 
in  each  State  as  electors  for  the  most  numerous  branch  of  the 
Legislature  in  that  State  ?  And  yet  who  ever  dreamed  that 
this  positive  provision  of  the  Constitution  gave  Congress  pow 
er  over  the  whole  subject  of  electors  and  elections  in  the 
States,  lest,  perad venture,  some  State  might  pass  a  law  violat 
ing  that  provision  ?  The  attempt  on  the  part  of  Congress  to 
exercise  any  such  powers  as  these  under  the  prohibitions  on 
the  States  would  have  been  regarded  at  any  time  before  the 
late  war  as  a  usurpation  and  an  utter  nullity ;  and  any  party 
that  might  have  supported  the  criminal  and  traitorous  attempt 
would  have  been  swept  into  swift  annihilation.  And  yet,  un 
der  this  mere  negative  provision  of  the  Fifteenth  (so-called) 
Amendment,  Congress,  by  this  Enforcement  Act,  has  taken  in 
to  its  own  charge  the  elections  in  all  the  States,  and  prescribes 
who  shall  and  who  shall  not  vote.  I  see  by  the  papers  of  to 
day  that  they  are  not  content  with  this  act,  enormous  as  it  is 
in  its  usurpation,  but  that  one  House  of  Congress  has  passed 


LINTON  STEPHENS  ON  RECONSTEUCTIOK  247 

an  act  greatly  enlarging  the  usurpation,  providing  for  a  Uni 
ted  States  officer  to  supervise  tlie  elections  in  each  State,  with 
large  judicial  powers,  and  with  power  to  use  the  bayonet  at 
his  own  discretion.  This  is  pausing  in  the  career  of  usurpa 
tion  ! 

As  a  veiy  appropriate  accompaniment  of  this  enlarged  En 
forcement  Act,  Mr.  Attorney-General  Akerman  recommends 
the  establishment  of  United  States  penitentiaries  and  jails  in 
all  the  States.  All  our  Presidents,  from  Washington  down 
to  the  time  of  the  recent  war,  found  ample  accommodation  for 
all  their  prisoners  in  the  prisons  of  the  States  under  State  visi 
tation,  inspection,  and  control.  This  dynasty  needs  bastiles  of 
its  own,  to  be  filled  with  the  political  prisoners,  who  may  be 
expected  to  come  in  large  numbers  as  the  product  of  the  new 
and  ever-increasing  despotic  usurpations;  and  to  be  subject  to 
no  visitation  or  interference  but  that  of  the  imperial  guard. 
Political  prosecutions  are  not  confined  to  me,  nor  to  this  State. 
A  cry  comes  up  against  them  from  Tennessee  also,  and  from 
other  States.  They  are  intended  to  become  an  institution  • 
and  the  bastiles  form  an  indispensable  part  of  the  institution. 
And  yet  all  this  is  done  while  the  right  of  suffrage  is  neither 
denied  nor  abridged,  on  account  either  of  color,  race,  or  previ 
ous  condition  of  servitude,  by  the  United  States,  or  by  any 
State,  or  anywhere  in  the  Union. 

Let  us  look  at  a  little  more  of  the  pausing  !  I  see  a  bill 
has  been  introduced  into  Congress  to  appoint  a  Ku  Klux  Com 
missioner  for  every  county  in  the  Southern  States,  he  also  to 
be  armed  with  large  judicial  powers  and  with  the  bayonet — to 
administer  the  laws  over  the  people  of  the  States  in  relation  to 
assaults  and  batteries,  murders,  trespasses,  and  all  crimes,  real 
and  pretended,  which  can  be  gathered  under  the  hundred- 
headed  hydra  of  "  Outrages."  This,  I  suppose,  is  a  part  of  the 
new  "  outrage  programme  "  which  has  been  so  brilliantly  in 
augurated  under  the  auspices  of  an  Outrage  Message  and  a 
Congressional  Outrage  Committee.  Outrages  they. are,  indeed  ! 
A  Congressional  committee  to  investigate  the  condition  of 
States,  and  determine,  forsooth,  whether  their  constituencies 
are  "  worthy "  to  be  represented  in  Congress !  This  is  the 


248  APPENDIX. 

question  which  General  Butler  has  sprung  as  to  the  constitu 
ency  of  this  very  Congressional  District — whether  they  are 
"worthy"  to  be  represented.  True,  our  Representative  was 
received  under  the  prima  facie  case  made  by  his  certificate  of 
election ;  but  the  great  fundamental  question,  as  to  the  worthi 
ness  of  our  constituency,  was  reserved  for  future  decision. 
What  that  decision  may  be,  who  can  tell  ?  This  question, 
together  with  divers  other  important  matters,  is  to  be  investi 
gated,  in  the  mean  time,  by  the  Congressional  Outrage  Com 
mittee.  Such  a  committee,  for  such  a  purpose,  before  the 
war,  would  have  raised  a  howl  of  derision  and  indignation 
throughout  the  land.  They  would  raise  it  now  if  this  investi 
gation  were  to  be  applied  to  any  Northern  State  of  this  Union. 
Yet,  when  they  shall  come  to  us  (if  they  shall  see  fit  to  make 
us  a  visitation),  bearing  the  badges  of  our  degradation,  we  shall 
be  accounted  as  very  disloyal,  rebellious,  and  outrageous,  if  we 
do  not  bow  and  smile,  and  beg  them  to  do  us  the  honor  of  en 
tering  into  the  bosoms  of  our  families. 

I  have  something  further  to  say  about  these  outrages  which 
form  the  chief  capital  of  those  who  habitually  seek  to  inflame 
the  minds  of  the  North  against  their  Southern  brethren,  to  sup 
port  them  in  re-re-reconstruction,  which  are  to  be  used  as  the 
instrument  of  overthrowing  the  Constitution,  abolishing  the 
States  and  the  ballot,  and  consolidating  a  grand  central  mili 
tary  despotism. 

The  situation  of  these  Southern  States  under  reconstruction 
has  been  so  extraordinary  that  it  would  be  wonderful  indeed  if 
disorders  and  violations  of  law  had  not  been  unusually  multi 
plied.  They  are  the  necessary  product  of  the  system.  The 
citizens  generally  have  striven  to  keep  them  down,  while  the 
revolutionary  governments,  not  only  upturning  the  political 
status,  but  also,  almost  inverting  the  social,  have  been  the  most 
potent  influence  in  producing  these  disorders.  Under  these 
governments,  administered  by  carpet-baggers,  scalawags,  and 
negroes,  the  pardoning  power  has  been  made  the  shameless 
instrument  of  recruiting  their  party,  and  of  making  the  people 
despair  of  an  impartial  administration  of  the  laws.  I  will  men 
tion  a  striking  instance  out  of  a  multitude  which  are  notorious. 


LINTON  STEPHENS  ON  RECONSTRUCTION.  34.9 

Fourteen  negroes  in  Hancock  County  were  convicted  of  an 
assault  with  intent  to  murder.  The  proof  was  a  confession  in 
every  case,  corroborated  by  other  most  satisfactory  evidence. 
This  proof  showed  that  the  crowd  went  to  a  man's  house  be 
tween  midnight  and  day,  yelling  like  savages,  and  swearing 
they  would  kill  him.  They  broke  down  his  door  and  shot  into 
his  house,  wounding  himself,  and  lodging  a  load  of  shot  in  the 
bedstead  just  over  the  head  of  his  wife.  He  saved  his  life  only 
by  making  his  escape  through  the  floor.  This  was  all  done 
without  provocation.  They  suspected  that  this  man,  March- 
man,  was  concerned  in  the  killing  of  a  negro,  who  had  been 
killed  some  time  before,  by  some  person  or  persons  unknown. 
The  proof  on  the  trial  showed  that  their  suspicion  was  utterly 
groundless,  and  that  when  the  negro  was  killed,  Marchman  was 
at  home,  and  could  not  possibly  have  known  any  thing  about  it. 
They  acted  on  the  mere  wild  suspicion  of  excited  ignorance. 
They  had  a  fair  trial  and  were  defended  by  very  able  counsel. 
The  verdict  of  conviction  was  publicly  approved  by  Judge  An 
drews,  whom  you  know  to  be  an  appointee  of  Governor  Bullock, 
and  a  member  of  the  Republican  party.  Yet  all  of  these  four 
teen  were  speedily  pardoned  out  of  the  penitentiary  by  Gover 
nor  Bullock,  and  turned  loose  upon  an  outraged  people.  One 
of  them  was  very  soon  put  back  into  the  penitentiary  for  a 
new  offence  in  an  adjoining  county.  This  is  a  specimen,  and 
but  a  specimen,  of  the  outrages  which  we  suffer. 

The  carpet-baggers  and  scalawags,  who  do  most  to  engen 
der  strife  between  the  races  and  produce  outrages,  speak  only 
of  those  which  are  committed  on  one  side.  They  are  as  silent 
as  the  grave  about  those  incited  by  themselves,  and  perpetrated 
by  their  ignorant  and  brutal  tools. 

I  have  yet  one  other  remark  to  make  about  these  outrages. 
I  know  of  none  where  a  jury  has  failed  to  convict  when  the 
guilty  party,  white  or  black,  was  shown  by  satisfactory  proof; 
and  I  know  of  no  place,  North  or  South,  where  convictions  are 
had,  or  would  be  desirable,  without  proof.  There  have  been 
foul  murders  committed  in  Boston,  and  nobody  hurt  for  them. 
One  notorious  case  of  the  same  kind  has  lately  occurred  in  New 
York  city.  Suppose  I  should  say  murder  is  done  in  Boston  and 


250  APPENDIX. 

New  York  "  with  impunity."  Suppose  Congress  should  send 
an  Outrage  Committee  to  investigate  Boston  and  New  York  ! 

The  truth  is,  the  general  rule  there  is,  that  criminals  are  pun 
ished  when  they  are  found  out.  The  general  rule  here  is,  that 
they  are  punished  when  they  are  found  out,  and  not  pardoned. 

This  is  a  truthful  sketch  of  the  situation — usurpation  accele 
rating  instead  of  pausing  in  its  career ;  revolution  giving  us 
wrongs,  outrages,  injuries,  and  insults  instead  of  the  protection, 
peace,  prosperity,  and  fraternity  which  we  have  a  right  to  ex 
pect  from  any  government,  and  should  certainly  receive  from 
our  rightful  constitutional  governments. 

This  is  the  situation  which  we  are  exhorted  to  accept.  This 
is  the  prospect  on  which  we  are  invited  to  repose,  with  assur 
ance  that  usurpation  will  henceforth  cease,  and  a  "  new  depart 
ure  "  will  be  taken  in  politics  under  the  auspices  of  sound  prin 
ciple.  The  appeal  is  made  to  us  on  the  supposition  that  we  are 
not  men,  but  geese.  The  appeal  is  made  to  the  country,  North 
and  South,  upon  the  supposition  that  the  country,  North,  and 
South,  is  composed  of  geese,  not  men. 

"Why  should  we  accept  the  situation  ?  Are  not  reconstruc 
tion  and  all  its  products  revolutionary,  unconstitutional,  and 
void  ?  Are  they  not  demonstrated  to  be  so  ?  Where  is  the 
harm  in  calling  them  so  ?  Where  is  the  harm  in  treating  them 
so  ?  It  is  said  that  the  remedy  proposed  would  itself  be  revolu 
tionary.  "What  is  that  remedy  ?  It  is  but  the  ballot.  The  bal 
lot,  used  how,  and  for  what  ?  Peacefully,  for  the  election  of 
men,  who,  when  elected,  will  treat  the  Constitution  as  the  Con 
stitution  ;  spurious  interpolations  upon  it  as  spurious  interpola 
tions  ;  laws  as  laws ;  nullities  as  nullities ;  truths  as  truths ; 
lies  as  lies.  The  remedy  is,  not  to  perpetrate  new  revolution, 
but  to  RECEDE  from  the  revolutionary  measures  of  the  usurpers, 
to  withdraw  the  bayonet,  and  leave  the  constitutional  govern 
ments,  which  are  now  displaced  by  the  revolutionary  ones,  to 
peacefully  rise  from  their  state  of  repression,  and,  by  the  re 
sumption  of  their  legitimate  functions,  solve  the  whole  problem 
of  restoration  in  a  manner  worthy  of  freemen,  and  distasteful 
only  to  usurpers  and  despots. 

The  revolutionary  usurpers  have  an  impudent  habit  of  call- 


LINTON  STEPHENS  ON  EEOOffSTBTTOTIOK  251 

ing  themselves  "  legitimists,"  and  Democrats  "  revolutionists." 
This  is  but  the  old  trick  of  the  thief  crying,  "Stop  thief!" 
Demonstrate  to  them  that  their  measures  are  revolutionary  and 
void,  and  the  reply  is  renewed  assertion  of  their  legality  and 
validity.  Argument  is  met  only  by  iteration  and  reiteration  of 
the  original  falsehood. 

It  is  the  case  of  the  robber  who  has  entered  your  house  by 
violence,  and  has  no  plea  for  remaining  there,  except  that  he 
has  got  in.  No  man  of  spirit  would  tolerate  the  plea  for  a 
single  instant,  even  though  the  robber  should  give  the  best  in 
dications  of  future  good  behavior,  instead  of  proceeding  as 
rapidly  as  possible  to  plunder  your  whole  house,  just  as  lie  is 
now  actually  doing. 

Centralism,  like  the  once  veiled  prophet  of  Khorassan,  is 
now  unveiled.  It  stands  revealed  in  all  its  hideousness.  Who 
so  depraved  as  to  worship  its  deformity  ?  Who  so  dastardly  as 
not  to  plant  a  dagger  in  its  vitals  ?  The  weapons  to  be  used 
are  those  of  Truth  and  Reason. 

The  Temple  of  Liberty  is  in  possession  of  the  money-chang 
ers  and  the  dove-sellers.  They  are  desecrating  its  altars,  and 
laying  their  unholy  hands  upon  the  very  ark  of  the  covenant. 
Nay,  more ;  they  are  undermining  the  very  foundations  of  the 
temple  itself;  and  if  they  are  not  driven  out  by  an  indignant 
people,  not  one  stone  will  be  left  standing  upon  another  of  the 
once  magnificent  structure. 

Our  error  heretofore  has  been  the  error  of  silence  under 
wrong.  I  have  never  counselled  violence.  I  do  not  counsel  it 
now.  I  deplore  it.  But  I  do  counsel  an  unremitting  appeal 
to  argument,  truth,  and  justice.  Using  these  as  her  sword, 
and  a  sublime  patience  as  her  shield,  the  South  should  never 
cease  to  agitate,  and  agitate,  and  AGITATE,  until  she  obtains  the 
righting  of  her  wrongs,  and  the  re-establishment  of  the  Consti 
tution  in  its  purity  and  its  beauty. 

Indications  are  now  most  promising  that  her  people  will  be 
united  in  the  resolve  to  recognize  no  alliance  with  any  party 
that  will  not  give  us  our  rights.  If  parties  wish  to  go  into 
scrambles  for  offices  and  spoils,  we  will  have  no  part  nor  lot  with 
them.  This  is  the  seed-time  of  ideas  for  the  next  Presidential 


252  APPENDIX. 

election.  You  may  rest  assured  that  that  election  will  turn 
upon  ideas.  No  party  can  maintain  itself  in  this  country  if  it 
cannot  defend  itself  by  argument.  Never,  since  the  close  of 
the  war,  has  the  time  been  so  auspicious  as  no.w  for  a  candid 
hearing  and  ready  reception  of  the  truth  in  the  North.  Recon 
struction  was  never  approved  there.  It  was  merely  tolerated 
and  accepted  as  the  only  feasible  solution  of  what  was  regarded 
as  the  pressing  and  distressing  problem  of  restoration.  It  is 
now  demonstrated  that  reconstruction  is  a  failure  and  a  crime ; 
and  that  its  authors  are  using  it,  not  as  a  means  of  restora 
tion,  but  as  a  means  of  alienation  •  and  that  they  intend  to 
use  it  as  an  instrument  for  overthrowing  the  Constitution,  and 
converting  this  Union  of  States  into  a  consolidated,  despotic 
centralism.  Its  wrongs  have  heretofore  been  chiefly  confined 
to  the  South.  It  is  now  laying  its  audacious  hands  upon  the 
North  also.  There  is  no  longer  any  decent  concealment  of  its 
purpose  to  control  the  elections  everywhere  by  the  bayonet, 
and  to  convert  our  government  from  one  of  the  ballot  into  one 
of  force.  This  purpose  can  be  arrested  and  defeated  only  by 
the  intelligence  and  energy  of  public  opinion.  Public  opinion 
will  be  equal  to  the  occasion.  "When  the  Boston  Port  Bill  was 
passed,  Virginia  raised  the  cry :  "  The  cause  of  Boston  is  the 
cause  of  us  all ; "  and  the  cry  was  caught  up  by  all  the  States, 
and  kindled  them  all  with  a  flame  of  enthusiasm.  The  cry  now 
is  :  "  The  cause  of  the  Constitution  is  the  cause  of  us  all ; " 
and  Boston  herself  will  not  fail  to  respond  to  it.  The  spirit  of 
liberty  is  not  dead  in  the  land  where  the  battles  of  the  Revolu 
tion  are  commemorated  by  monuments  and  by  literature.  Its 
echoes  yet  linger  in  Faneuil  Hall ;  and  some  Otis,  or  Adams, 
or  "Webster  will  wake  them  with  new  power  and  new  glory. 

It  is  also  now  demonstrated  that  the  supposed  difficult 
problem  of  restoration  finds  its  natural  and  happy  solution 
in  receding  from  revolution  and  returning  to  the  Constitution. 

The  party  that  gives  this  platform  to  the  country  in  the 
next  Presidential  campaign,  and  puts  candidates  upon  it  ear 
nestly  devoted  to  its  success,  will  be  irresistible  in  position  and 
in  argument ;  and,  therefore,  will  carry  the  country. 

It  will,  at  all  events,  have  the  undying  gratitude  of  the 


EX-GOV.  JENKINS  ON  EECONSTRUCTIOK  253 

South.  She,  at  least,  can,  stand  nowhere  else.  Any  other 
position  for  her  is  forbidden  alike  by  self-respect  and  self-pres 
ervation.  And  what  is  now  her  position  must  very  soon  in 
evitably  be  the  position  of  all  the  States. 


III. 


LETTER  OF  EX-GOVERNOR  CHARLES  J.  JENKINS  TO  His  EXCEL 
LENCY  JAMES  M.  SMITH,  PRESENT  GOVERNOR  OF  GEORGIA. 

AUGUSTA,  GA.,  March  15,  1872. 

His  Excellency f,  James  M.  Smith : 

SIR  : — Since  my  removal  from  the  office  which  you  now  hold, 
in  January,  1868,  by  Major-General  Meade,  of  the  United 
States  Army,  commanding  Department  of  Georgia,  I  have  re 
frained  from  communication  with  the  de  facto  government  of 
the  State. 

Had  there  been  no  interference  of  the  Federal  Govern 
ment,  my  term  of  office  would  have  expired  in  November, 
1867,  and  there  would  then  have  been  assembled  a  Legislature 
to  whom  I  would  have  rendered  an  account  of  my  steward 
ship,  accompanied  by  the  usual  reports  of  the  Treasurer  and 
Comptroller-General  for  that  year.  Such  a  communication, 
with  like  accompaniments  for  the  preceding  year,  had  been 
submitted  to  the  General  Assembly  at  their  second  session  in 
November,  1866.  There  having  been  neither  Governor  nor 
Legislature  elected  in  1867,  I,  under  a  provision  of  the  Con 
stitution,  held  over ;  but  there  was  no  Legislative  Assembly. 
From  the  time  of  my  removal  until  the  installation  of  the 
present  Governor  and  Legislature,  those  departments  have  not, 
in  my  judgment,  been  filled  by  persons  rightfully  representing 
the  people  of  Georgia  or  faithfully  guarding  their  interests. 

I  am  informed  that  a  committee  appointed  for  that  purpose 
by  the  Legislature  convened  in  1868,  examined  the  books  and 
accounts  of  Mr.  Treasurer  Jones  for  the  last  year  of  my  ad 
ministration,  and  reported  them  correct. 


254:  APPENDIX. 

I  desire,  however,  to  make  a  formal  representation  of  cer 
tain  transactions  during  my  official  term,  of  which  no  account 
has  been  given,  and  some  of  which  have  been  grossly  misrepre 
sented  to  the  public. 

Such  a  communication  to  a  State  Executive,  from  a  prede 
cessor,  is,  I  know,  unusual,  if  not  unprecedented ;  but  I  trust 
you  will  find  in  the  circumstances,  heretofore  and  now  sur 
rounding  me,  a  justification  of  it,  and  that  you  will  kindly 
place  it  on  file,  with  the  archives  of  the  State,  where  it  may 
hereafter  be  accessible  for  reference  if  desirable. 

I  need  scarcely  remark  that,  owing  to  the  suspension  of 
the  State  government  at  the  close  of  the  war — serious  compli 
cations  with  the  Federal  government  resulting  from  thac  con 
flict — the  utter  exhaustion  of  our  treasury,  the  impoverished 
condition  of  our  people,  and  the  interference  by  Congressional 
legislation  with  the  State  government  first  inaugurated  after 
the  war,  my  administration  was  fraught  with  difficulty,  re 
sponsibility,  and  anxiety.  "When  I  entered  upon  the  duties  of 
the  office  there  was  no  money  in  the  treasury — there  were  out 
standing  liabilities  of  Governor  Brown's  last  term  (owing  to 
his  removal  by  the  United  States  Government  several  months 
before  its  constitutional  end) — debts  contracted  by  Provisional 
Governor  Johnson,  to  carry  on  the  government  and  the  ex 
penses  of  the  Convention  of  1865,  provided  for  by  temporary 
loans.  There  were  also  ante-war  bonds,  and  interest  coupons 
of  considerable  amount  which  matured  during  and  after  the 
war — the  expenses  of  the  Legislature  which  came  in  with  me, 
and  the  accruing  demands  of  the  civil  list.  The  bed  and 
track  of  the  Western  &  Atlantic  Railroad  were  in  a  dilapidated 
condition,  its  depots  and  bridges  in  a  great  measure  destroyed, 
and  its  rolling  stock  partly  lost  or  destroyed,  and  partly  worn 
out  and  valueless.  Its  Superintendent  under  Provisional  Gov 
ernor  Johnson,  with  his  approval,  had  contracted  a  debt  with 
the  United  States  Government  of  about  four  hundred  and 
seventy  thousand  dollars  ($470,000)  in  the  purchase  of  rolling 
stock  and  other  railroad  property,  and  still  in  these  items  there 
was  a  large  deficiency. 

The  Capitol,  its  grounds  and  furniture,  and  the  Executive 


EX-GOV.   JENKINS  ON  RECONSTRUCTION.  255 

Mansion  and  its  furniture,  required  extensive  repairs  and  re 
newals.  The  Penitentiary  had  been  partially  burned  and  ren 
dered  insecure,  requiring  a  large  outlay  in  rebuilding  and 
strengthening  it. 

Besides  all  this,  there  were  no  taxes  collected  in  1865.  In 
view  of  this  condition  of  our  financial  aifairs,  it  must,  I  think, 
surprise  the  reflecting  mind  that  the  Legislature,  to  meet  these 
liabilities,  and  put  the  machinery  of  government  again  in  mo 
tion,  resorted  to  the  credit  of  the  State  by  the  issue  of  its 
bonds  only  to  the  amount  of  three  millions  and  thirty  thou 
sand  dollars  ($3,030,000). 

The  Convention  of  1865  did,  indeed,  authorize  the  issue  of 
bonds,  amounting  to  five  hundred  thousand  dollars  ($500,000) 
to  meet  the  emergencies  of  the  hour.  But  these,  owing  to  re 
strictions  put  upon  them,  were  found  available  only  for  very 
short  loans,  and  were  so  used,  and  redeemed  with  proceeds  of 
bonds  afterward  authorized  by  the  Legislature,  except  about 
twenty-six  thousand  dollars  ($26,000)  which  had  not  been  pre 
sented  at  the  Treasury,  although  called  in. 

There  were  also  bonds  authorized  by  7th  section  of  the  act 
of  12th  March,  1866,  amounting  to  six  hundred  thousand  dol 
lars  ($600,000),  to  pay  the  land  tax  assessed  by  the  United 
States  Government  against  the  people  of  Georgia. 

These  bonds  were  engraved  with  others,  but  as  the  United 
States  authorities  refused  to  receive  payment  of  the  tax  from 
the  Executive  of  the  State,  were  not  signed  or  sealed  until 
after  the  next  session  of  the  Legislature  (Nov.,  1866). 

On  their  assembling,  I  reported  to  them  the  failure  to  use 
those  bonds  for  the  purpose  intended,  and  advised  that  the  Ex 
ecutive  be  authorized  to  issue  them  in  redemption  of,  or  ex 
change  for,  bonds  of  the  State,  which  would  mature  within  a 
short  time.  Authority  to  that  effect  was  given  by  the  Legisla 
ture,  and  then  these  bonds,  in  all  respects  similar  to  other 
bonds  issued  under  the  act  of  March  12,  1866,  were  executed. 
As  these  bonds  bore  a  higher  rate  of  interest  than  those  to  be 
redeemed  by  them,  and  were  secured  by  a  mortgage  on  the 
"Western  &  Atlantic  Railroad,  it  was  believed  that  no  diffi 
culty  would  be  encountered  in  exchanging  them  for  the  latter 


256  APPENDIX. 

on  terms  advantageous  to  the  State,  and  thus  our  suffering 
people  be  released  from  taxation,  to  meet  a  heavy  demand 
upon  the  treasury  at  no  distant  day.  They  were  accordingly 
placed  in  the  National  Bank  of  the  Republic  (New  York)  for 
that  purpose,  and  notice  of  the  terms  on  which  the  State  would 
make  the  exchange  extensively  published.  This  exchange  had 
been  commenced,  but  no  great  progress  had  been  made  in  it  at 
the  time  of  my  removal.  Knowing  no  safer  place  of  deposit 
for  them,  and  desiring  not  to  suspend  the  process  of  exchange, 
I  suffered  them  to  remain  there,  giving  written  instructions  to 
the  agent  to  continue  it,  but  beyond  that,  to  deliver  them  to 
no  person  except  upon  the  order  of  John  Jones,  Treasurer,  or 
of  myself. 

The  Legislature  assembled  in  1868,  passed  a  resolution  au 
thorizing  the  Governor  inaugurated  by  them  to  take  possession 
of  all  bonds  of  the  State  executed  but  not  negotiated,  wher 
ever  to  be  found.  Under  this  authority,  as  I  have  been  in 
formed,  the  acting  Governor,  R.  B.  Bullock,  demanded  of  the 
bank  the  unexchanged  bonds  then  in  their  possession,  and  the 
agent,  under  legal  advice,  surrendered  them  to  him,  but  re 
quired  of  him  an  indorsement  on  each  bond,  of  the  manner  in 
which  he  became  possessed  of  it.  The  precise  amount  so  de 
livered  I  know  not,-but  suppose  it  could  have  varied  little  from 
six  hundred  thousand  dollars.  I  am,  of  course,  ignorant  what 
disposition  has  been  made  of  them.  If  they  have  been  faith 
fully  applied  to  the  object  intended,  they  have  not  increased 
the  indebtedness  of  the  State,  but  have  only  postponed,  to  a 
more  convenient  time,  its  payment,  pro  tanto,  and  the  relief 
has  accrued,  or  will  accrue,  to  administrations  succeeding 
mine. 

If  otherwise,  the  misapplication  is  chargeable  to  the  Execu 
tive,  who,  rather  than  come  to  an  account  with  the  fairly  elected 
and  honest  representatives  of  the  people  he  was  charged  with 
having  plundered,  ingloriously  fled  the  State.  In  no  event  can 
those  bonds  be  fairly  set  down  as  an  original  indebtedness  in 
curred  by  the  State  during  my  official  term,  and  by  my  advice. 

Other  bonds  were  issued  by  me,  in  conformity  with  the  act 
of  February,  1856,  authorizing  a  subscription  to  the  stock  of  the 


EX-GOV.   JEKKINS   ON  KECONSTEUCTION.  257 

Atlantic  &  Gulf  Railroad  Company,  and  the  issue  of  bonds 
of  the  State,  in  payment  of  installments  on  that  stock,  as  the 
corporation  might  show  itself  entitled  to  them.  Evidence  that 
they  were  so  entitled,  was  in  each  instance  adduced  before  the 
bonds  were  issued ;  amounts,  dates,  etc.,  will  appear  by  refer 
ence  to  the  records  of  the  Treasurer's  and  Comptr oiler-General's 
offices. 

But  this  liability  was  incurred  ten  years  before  my  time. 
The  amounts  of  the  two  classes  of  bonds  last  mentioned  have, 
in  an  indiscriminating,  unscrupulous  partisan  spirit,  been  added 
to  the  three  millions  and  thirty  thousand  mentioned  before,  and 
the  grand  aggregate  presented  as  an  increase  of  the  public  debt 
under  my  administration  and  by  my  advice. 

I  think  I  have  disposed  of  those  two  classes,  and  will  not 
again  refer  to  them.  I  now  propose  to  show  that  the  public 
debt  was  increased  by  less  than  one-half  of  the  three  millions 
and  thirty  thousand  dollars  ($3,030,000). 

The  authority  for  issuing  these  bonds,  and .  the  purposes  to 
which  they  were  to  be  applied,  will  be  found  in  the  act  of  the 
12th  of  March,  1866,  and  the  llth  section  of  the  General  Ap 
propriation  Act  of  the  same  year.  The  following  items  em 
braced  in  the  act  first  mentioned  were  obviously  provisions  for 
funding  existing  indebtedness,  and  therefore  did  not  increase 
the  public  debt : 

Section  8 — To  pay  the  matured  bond  debt  and  interest  thereon.   $830,000 
Section  1 — To  pay  debt  to  United  States  Government  for  rail 
road  property  purchased  during  Provisional  Governor  John 
son's  term,  and  interest 500,000 

Loans  contracted  by  Provisional  Governor  Johnson 30,000 

Making  an  aggregate  of $1,360,000 

Which  deducted  from  the  new  bond  debt  of  $3,030,000  leaves  as 

increase  of  public  debt $1,670,000 

Among  the  appropriations  made  and  paid  from  proceeds  of  these 
bonds  were  two  extraordinary  items  of  pure  charity,  having 
all  the  moral  obligation  of  debts,  viz. :  to  purchase  corn  for 
the  destitute,  and  artificial  limbs  for  disabled  soldiers 220,000 

Leaving  a  balance  of $1,450,000 

This  balance  was  relied  upon  to  repair  and  complete  the 
17 


258  APPENDIX. 

equipment  of  the  "Western  &  Atlantic  Railroad ;  to  repair  and 
refit  the  State  House,  and  its  grounds ;  the  Executive  Mansion 
and  furniture ;  the  Penitentiary ;  to  pay  the  unfunded  debts  of 
the  State  (by  no  means  inconsiderable),  and  to  defray  the  entire 
expenses  of  the  government  for  one  -year,  including  the  support 
of  its  great  public  charities,  and  the  accruing  annual  interest  on 
the  public  debt. 

•This  sum  of  one  million  four  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dol 
lars  was  subjected,  before  it  came  into  the  Treasury  for  general 
use,  to  a  diminution  by  the  expenses  incident  to  the  prepara 
tion  and  engraving  of  the  bonds,  the  execution  of  the  mortgage, 
commissions  to  agents  employed  in  the  sale  of  them,  and  the 
rate  of  discount  upon  them,  for  no  bonds  of  any  Southern  State 
could  then  be  negotiated  at  par  value.  The  bonds  first  sold — 
about  nine  hundred  thousand  dollars  (§900,000)  in  amount — 
yielded  ninety  per  cent.  A  few  were  afterward  sold  for  ninety- 
five,  and  they  would  undoubtedly  have  reached  par  value  in  the 
market,  but  for  the  depressing  effect  of  Congressional  legislation 
upon  the  credit  of  the  Southern  States.  Tinder  this  withering 
influence,  these  bonds  afterward  fell  below  ninety  in  the  New 
York  market.  For  more  minute  details  respecting  the  disposi 
tion  of  these  bonds,  reference  is  made  to  the  records  of  the 
Treasury  and  of  the  Comptroller-General's  office,  to  which,  as 
I  write,  I  have  not  access. 

I  have  mentioned  a  debt  contracted  by  the  Provisional 
Superintendent  of  the  Western  &  Atlantic  Railroad  under 
Provisional  Governor  Johnson,  and  wThich  debt  occasioned  my 
first  unpleasant  complication  with  the  United  States  Govern 
ment.  The  Superintendent  insisted  that  he  was,  by  the  terms 
of  the  contract,  entitled  to  a  clear  credit  of  two  years  upon  the 
amount  of  the  purchase.  The  Sale-Agent  of  the  United  States, 
on  the  contrary,  affirmed  that  by  the  terms  of  sale,  the  purchaser 
could  only  be  entitled  to  such  credit,  on  giving  bond  with  ap 
proved  personal  security,  for  the  payment  of  the  debt  at  the 
expiration  of  two  years  ;  in  default  of  which,  monthly  payments 
of  the  twenty-fourth  part  of  the  debt,  with  interest,  at  Y-30  per 
cent,  must  be  made,  until  the  debt  was  extinguished.  The  con 
test  between  these  officials  was  an  unequal  one.  The  monthly 


EX-GOY.  JENKINS  ON  RECONSTEUCTION.  259 

payments  were  peremptorily  demanded.  I  suggested  to  the 
Legislature  the  expediency  of  authorizing  the  Superintendent 
of  the  Western  &  Atlantic  Eailroad  to  give  a  bond  for  the 
payment  of  the  debt  within  two  years,  and  of  pledging  the  faith 
of  the  State  for  its  payment.  Accordingly  the  act  of  the  13th 
March,  1866,  was  passed,  and  a  bond  executed  in  conformity 
with  it,  and  delivered.  Still,  for  lack  of  personal  security,  the 
monthly  payments  were  demanded.  In  an  interview  with  Mr. 
Stanton,  Secretary  of  War,  I  protested  against  this,  and  insisted 
on  the  payment  of  the  whole  sum  at  the  expiration  of  the  two 
years — urging  that  the  pledge  of  the  State's  credit  was  more 
than  an  equivalent  for  personal  security. 

He  heard  me  patiently,  but  when  I  concluded,  remarked 
curtly,  "  I  can  give  you  no  relief.  You  seem  to  think  because 
this  railroad  is  the  property  of  the  State,  and  the  debt  incurred, 
her  debt,  and  because  she  had  given  her  bond  for  it,  she  should 
be  admitted  to  the  privilege  of  purchasers  giving  bond  and 
security.  I  cannot  make  that  distinction.  The  terms  must  be 
complied  with." 

I  asked  permission  to  take  issue  with  him  on  that  point.  I 
pressed  upon  him  the  universal  recognized  comity  between  na- 
tiojis  and  States,  between  organized'  governments,  and  stated 
as  a  corollary  from  it,  that  one  Government  would  accord  to 
another  a  credit  never  given  to  an  individual.  I  concluded 
thus :  "  I  have  not  supposed,  Mr.  Stanton,  I  should  live  to  see 
the  day  when  the  United  States  Government  would  send  the 
Governor  of  a  State  out  to  hunt  after  personal  security  for  a 
money  contract.  I  cannot  lower  the  dignity  of  my  State  by 
doing  such  an  act." 

The  stern  Secretary  relented,  considered,  and  finally  took 
the  matter  before  the  Cabinet,  who  referred  it  to  the  Secretary 
of  War  and  the  Attorney-General,  with  power  to  act.  I  then 
went  before  the  latter  to  discuss  the  question  with  him.  So 
soon  as  I  broached  the  proposition  requiring  a  State  to  give 
personal  security  for  a  debt,  Mr.  Stanberry,  that  upright  man, 
courteous  gentleman,  and  able  jurist,  interrupted  me  with  the 
remark,  "Governor,  I 'confess  that  proposition  revolts  me." 
"As  it  has  done  me,  Mr.  Attorney-General,"  I  replied.  He 


260  APPEKDIX. 

rejoined,  "  Oh,  that  will  not  do.  Mr.  Stanton  must  give  that 
up."  And  he  did  give  it  up,  and  cheerfully,  at  last. 

I  refer  to  this  matter  partly  to  show  that,  among  those  dis 
tinguished  men,  members  of  the  administration  (and,  we  may 
infer,  by  the  Cabinet),  Georgia  was,  at  that  time,  recognized 
as  having  the  status  of  a  State  of  the  Union. 

Early  in  the  year  1866  the  Collector  of  Internal  Revenue 
for  the  Fourth  District  of  Georgia  required  the  Superintendent 
of  the  Western  &  Atlantic  Railroad  to  make  monthly  returns 
to  him  of  the  gross  receipts  from  the  road,  and  to  pay  a  tax  of 
two  and  one-half  per  cent,  upon  them. 

Believing  the  tax  to  be  illegal,  because  assessed  upon  the 
revenue  of  the  State,  I  appealed  against  it  to  the  Secretary  of 
the  United  States  Treasury,  who,  after  a  reference  of  the  ques 
tion  to  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  and  a  report  by  him,  over 
ruled  my  appeal  and  ordered  the  collection  to  proceed.  JSTot 
satisfied  with  the  decision,  I  filed  a  bill  in  equity  in  the  Dis 
trict  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  the  name  of  the  State  of 
Georgia,  against  the  Collector,  seeking  to  enjoin  the  collection 
of  the  tax.  After  argument  upon  a  rule  against  the  Collector, 
to  show  cause  in  Chambers  why  an  injunction  should  not  issue, 
the  Judge  reserved  his  decision  until  the  next  term  of  the 
Court  in  Atlanta ;  but  assured  the  Solicitors  of  the  State,  in 
the  presence  of  the  District  Attorney  and  the  Collector,  that 
meantime  no  further  action  in  collection  of  the  tax  would  be 
taken. 

During  his  temporary  absence  from  the  State,  however,  and 
before  his  decision,  the  Collector  peremptorily  demanded  pay 
ment  of  the  tax  then  accrued  (amounting  to  more  than  twenty- 
four  thousand  dollars)  within  ten  days,  in  default  of  which  a 
levy  would  be  made  upon  the  property  of  the  road.  Informed 
of  this,  I  directed  the  Superintendent  to  pay  under  protest, 
which  was  done. 

As  soon  as  practicable  afterward,  in  a  personal  interview 
with  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  I  brought  all  those  matters- 
to  his  consideration,  and  found  him  profoundly  ignorant  of  the 
filing  of  the  bill,  the  proceedings  in  Chambers,  the  assurance 
of  the  Judge  respecting  suspension  of  action,  and  the  sub- 


EX-GOV.  JENKINS  ON  KECONSTKUCTION.  261 

sequent  enforcement  of  payment.  I  do  liim  the  justice  to 
say,  that  he  manifested  genuine  surprise  and  indignation  at 
the  last  stage  of  the  proceeding.  He  pronounced  it  ".all 
wrong,"  and  immediately  summoned  before  him  the  Deputy 
Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  (the  Chief  being  absent  at 
the  time),  who,  after  hearing  the  recital,  concurred  in  the  Sec 
retary's  opinion,  and  declared  himself  equally  ignorant  and  in 
nocent  of  the  wrong. 

The  result  was  that  the  Secretary  ordered  the  suspension  of 
the  collection,  until  rendition  of  the  Judge's  decision  (saying 
he  thought  I  had  adopted  the  best  course  for  the  settlement  of 
the  question),  but  declined  to  refund'the  sum  paid  under  duress, 
which  had  been  pronounced  "  all  wrong  "  until  the  decision 
was  made. 

At  the  next  term  of  the  Court,  Judge  Erskine  delivered  an 
elaborate  opinion,  concluding  with  an  order  of  injunction  pen- 
dente  lite.  A  copy  of  this  decision  was  forwarded  to  the  De 
partment  with  a  second  demand  for  repayment,  which  was 
declined  on  the  ground  that  the  Secretary  was  considering  the 
propriety  of  carrying  up  the  question. 

The  Collector,  I  was  informed,  never  answered  the  bill,  nor 
put  in  an  appearance ;  and  at  the  September  term,  1867,  the 
Judge  granted  a  perpetual  injunction,  and  decreed  that  the 
sum  paid  under  duress  be  refunded. 

A  third  demand  was  then  made  for  repayment,  but  I  was 
answered  that  the  legality  of  the  tax  had  been  referred  to  the 
Attorney-General  of  the  United  States,  and  that  the  Depart 
ment  would  await  his  opinion.  That  was  soon  after  given, 
sustaining  the  decree  of  the  Court,  which  declared  the  tax 
illegal.  Then,  upon  a  fourth  demand,  the  money  was  refunded, 
but  interest  on  it  was  refused,  although  the  Treasury  of  the 
United  States  had  held  it  about  eighteen  months,  and  although 
during  the  same  time  interest  was  accruing  at  the  rate  of  7.30 
per  cent,  against  the  Western  &  Atlantic  Railroad  to  the 
United  States,  on  the  debt  before  mentioned,  and  soon  after 
paid  in  full. 

But  for  this  appeal  to  the  Judiciary,  in  limine,  it  cannot  be 
doubted  that  this  onerous  and  illegal  tax  would,  year  after 


262  APPENDIX. 

year,  have  been  extorted  from  our  impoverished  State  by  the 
spoiled  and  spoiling  minions  of  power.  It  is  but  one  of  many 
exhibitions  of  the  tyrannous  and  rapacious  spirit  in  which  the 
ruling  party  have  requited  the  unconditional  and'  sincere  sub 
mission  of  the  Southern  people  to  the  authority  of  the  Federal 
Government.  These  wrongs  I  impute  to  the  ruling  party— 
theirs  is  the  sin ;  and  theirs,  in  the  time  of  recompense,  will  be 
the  shame  and  the  suffering.  We  can  only  possess  ourselves  in 
patience,  looking  for  the  outstretching  of  His  right  arm  who 
has  said,  "  Vengeance  is  mine,  and  I  will  repay" 

But  these  things  should  not  be  allowed  to  pass  unheeded  or 
unchronicled. 

Great  as  were  the  embarrassments  encompassing  the  office 
during  the  first  year  of  my  term,  they  were  vastly  increased  by 
the  passage  of  the  Reconstruction  Acts,  and  the  entrance  into 
the  State  of  a  military  chieftain,  transferred  from  "  headquar 
ters  in  the  saddle  "  to  headquarters  in  Atlanta.  This  man  came 
invested  with  despotic  power  over  the  people  of  Georgia,  and 
with  authority,  at  his  sovereign  pleasure,  to  remove  from  office 
any  one  of  their  chosen  public  servants.  And  these  things — 
shades  of  "Washington,  Jefferson,  and  Madison ! — were  done, 
notwithstanding  the  distinct  recognition  of  Georgia  (either  be 
fore  they  were  commenced,  or  during  their  progress)  as  a  State 
within  the  Union,  by  every  department  of  the  Federal  Govern 
ment.  I  pause  not  to  produce  proofs  of  the  assertion ;  but  I 
challenge  an  issue  upon  it. 

These  Reconstruction  Acts,  it  will  be  remembered,  had 
been  passed  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  over  the 
veto  of  the  President,  based. upon  their  unconstitutionally. 
So  soon  as  action  was 'taken  under  them — so  soon  as  the  foot 
of  the  military  Despot  was  impressed  upon  the  soil  of  Georgia 
— I  repaired  to  Washington  and  filed  a  bill,  in  the  name  of  the 
State  of  Georgia,  against  the  intruders  in  the  Supreme  Court, 
seeking  to  enjoin  and  set  aside  these  proceedings  as  infringe 
ments  upon  the  reserved  sovereignty  of  the  State,  and  in  viola 
tion  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

The  right  of  the  State  to 'file  that  bill,  and  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Court  in  the  case,  depended  upon  the  fact  alleged,  that 


EX-GOV.  JENKINS  ON  KECONSTEUCTION.  203 

she  was  one  of  the  States'  of  the  Union.  As  a  foreign  power, 
or  a  conquered  province,  she  would  have  had  no  right  to  do  so 
—the  Court,  no  jurisdiction  in  the  premises.  Still,  as  the  rec 
ords  of  the  Court  show,  upon  full  presentation  of  the  Com 
plaint,  formal  permission  was  granted  to  file  the  bill ;  nor  was 
she  afterward  dismissed  the  Court  unredressed,  on  the  ground 
that  she  lacked  that  status. 

After  argument,  the  bill  was  dismissed  because  in  it  there 

O  7 

was  alleged  neither  interference,  nor  the  threat  of  interference, 
with  her  property,  which  the  Court  held  was  necessary  to  make 
a  case  for  their  sublime  consideration.  Nothing  so  far  had 
been  disturbed  or  threatened,  save  the  modest,  though  priceless, 
diadem  of  her  reserved  sovereignty  (in  Radical  estimation  a 
paltry  bauble),  of  which  that  elevated  Tribunal  could  not  con 
descend  to  take  cognizance. 

The  deep  humiliation  which  then  pervaded  the  entire  mass 
of  a  proud  people — proud  in  their  historical  reminiscences,  and 
their  consciousness  of  thorough  rectitude  of  intention  and  of 
conduct — will  be  long  remembered.  Their  final  submission 
was  as  truthful  and  unqualified  as  their  resistance  had  been 
honest,  open,  and  heroic. 

But  that  humiliation  was  intensified  in  the  person  of  their 
Executive,  forced,  as  he  was,  by  circumstances  into  daily  con 
tact  with  the  insolence  of  an  intruded  Ruler,  trained  to  arbi 
trary  military  comand,  unfamiliar  with  civil  government,  and 
rendered  giddy  by  his  unwonted  eminence.  Had  I  yielded  to 
the  promptings  of  personal  feeling,  I  would  at  once  have  es 
caped  the  pain  of  this  unprecedented  subordination  by  resign 
ing  the  office.  But  knowing  that  the  position  would  enable 
me  to  keep  open  to  our  people  a  channel  of  communication 
with  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  the  Union  (who  was  a  reluctant 
agent  in  this  crusade  against  liberty),  and  might  thus,  in  some 
degree,  alleviate  their  sufferings,  I  resolved  to  remain  in  it, 
yielding  all  questions  of  mere  policy,  but  maintaining  principle 
to  the  extent  of  my  power ;  and  falling  (if  fall  I  must)  in  its 
defence.  I  was  powerless  to  prevent  the  removal  of  faithful 
officers  of  the  judicial  department,  or  the  appointment  of  others 
to  fill  their  places,  or  to  arrest  the  latter  in  the  unauthorized 


264  APPEKDIX. 

exercise  of  tlieir  ill-gotten  offices ;  but  I  declined  to  pay  them 
the  salaries  appropriated  to  officers  constitutionally  appointed 
and  commissioned.  This  alone  would  probably  have  induced 
my  removal ;  but  an  occasion  of  greater  moment  soon  after 
occurred. 

The  Congress  of  the  United  States,  by  their  nefarious  Recon 
struction  Acts,  had  provided  for  the  assemblage  of  a  Convention, 
at  Atlanta,  to  frame  a  Constitution  for  the  State  in  lieu  of  that 
adopted  in  1865,  after  the  close  of  the  war.  The  latter  was 
confessedly  Republican  in  character — acknowledged  as  the  Su 
preme  law  of  the  State,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
and  all  acts  of  Congress  in  conformity  therewith — had  received 
the  President's  approval,  and  under  it  the  existing  State  Gov 
ernment  had  been  organized. 

The  Congressional  act  which  called  the  Convention  of  186T 
and  1868  together,  provided  for  defraying  their  expenses,  only 
by  authorizing  them  to  levy  a  tax  for  that  purpose.  The  body, 
finding  themselves  unprovided  with  subsistence,  and  incapable 
of  feeding  upon  their  patriotism  until  relieved  by  the  slow  pro 
cess  of  taxation,  experimented  upon  the  credit  of  the  State, 
which,  though  always  previously  a  reliable  resource  in  emer 
gencies,  failed  to  attract  capital,  when  tampered  with  by  them. 

In  this  extremity,  they  turned  their  longing  eyes  upon  the 
Treasury  of  the  State.  "Whether  originally  prompted,  or  only 
encouraged  by  the  military  Dictator,  they  passed  a  resolution 
requiring  the  Treasurer  of  the  State  to  pay  to  their  financial 
agent  the  sum  of  forty  thousand  dollars,  for  the  present  use  of 
the  Convention.  This  resolution  (being  only  an  entering 
wedge)  was  approved  by  General  Pope,  under  whose  broad 
shadow  they  held  their  daily  sittings ;  and  armed  with  this  high 
authority,  the  agent  designated  repaired  to  Milledgeville,  and 
made  formal  demand  of  the  money  upon  Colonel  John  Jones, 
State  Treasurer. 

That  worthy  gentleman  and  faithful  officer  refused  pay 
ment  in  the  absence  of  an  Executive  warrant.  About  this 
time  General  Pope  (proofs  of  whose  numerous  abuses  of  power 
had  been  multiplied  to  the  President  by  myself  and  others)  was 
removed  from  his  command  in  Georgia,  and  General  Meade  ap- 


EX-GOV.  JENKINS  ON  RECONSTRUCTION.  265 

pointed  to  succeed  him.  One  of  the  successor's  first  acts  -was  a 
requisition  upon  me  for  a  warrant  upon  the  Treasurer  to  satisfy 
the  demand  of  the  Convention.  With  this  I  refused  to  comply, 
on  the  ground  that  the  Constitution,  under  which  I  was  elected 
and  inaugurated,  and  which  I  had  sworn  to  obey,  expressly 
provided  that  no  money  should  be  taken  from  the  Treasury,  ex 
cept  by  Executive  warrant,  upon  appropriation  made  by  law  ; 
and  that  no  appropriation  had  been  made  by  law  to  defray  the 
expenses  of  that  Convention.  I  insisted  that  the  requisition 
was  unwarranted,  even  by  the  Reconstruction.  Acts.  The  Con 
gress  had  not  ventured  upon  an  act  so  flagrant  as  the  direct  ap 
propriation  of  money  from  the  Treasury  of  Georgia.  But  they 
had  bestowed  a  largess  of  power  upon  a  military  chieftain, 
whose  lack  of  training  in  the  principles  of  civil  government 
rendered  him  little  scrupulous  in  overstepping  constitutional 
barriers.  I  felt,  and  feel,  that  the  argument  was  with  me,  but 
the  power,  was  with  the  General,  and  beneath  its  pressure  I 
and  the  argument  went  down  together.  I  was  removed  by  a 
military  fiat,  and  Brevet  Brigadier-General  Ruger,  of  the  U.  S. 
Army,  a  subordinate  of  General  Meade,  appointed  to  succeed  me. 

On  presenting  himself  to  assume  the  Government,  the  ap 
pointee,  in  answer  to  a  question  by  me,  read  me  an  extract  from 
his  instructions,  directing  him,  in  case  of  resistance,  to  employ 
such  force  as  might  be  necessary  to  overcome  it.  Having  at 
my  command  no  force  whatever,  I  contented  myself  with  a  pro 
test  against  the  proceeding,  as  a  flagrant  usurpation,  violative 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  a  declaration  that 
I  forbore  resistance  only  because  I  was  powerless  to  make  it — 
and  so  retired. 

I  believe  it  is  pretty  generally  understood  that,  as  far  as 
was  practicable,  in  the  brief  interval  allowed  me,  I  placed  the 
movable  values  of  the  State,  and  certainly  the  money  then  in 
the  Treasury,  beyond  the  reach  of  the  spoilers,  and  in  the  exer 
cise  of  a  legal  discretion  suspended  the  collection  of  taxes  then 
in  progress.  At  all  events,  the  immediate  object  of  this  extreme 
measure,  the  placing  of  the  funds  actually  in  the  Treasury  at 
the  disposal  of  the  Constitution-makers,  then  unconstitutionally 
assembled  at  Atlanta,  was  defeated.  Contemporaneously  with 


266  APPENDIX. 

this  entire,  undisguised  usurpation  of  the  Executive  Office,  those 
military  men  took  actual  possession  of  the  State  Capitol,  and 
its  grounds — of  the  Executive  Mansion  and  its  furniture  and 
grounds,  and  of  the  archives  of  the  State. 

Furthermore,  they  revoked  my  order  suspending  the  collec 
tion  of  taxes,  which  they  required  the  Collector  to  pay  to  their 
own  appointed  treasurer,  seized  upon  the  income  of  the  West 
ern  &  Atlantic  Railroad  (then  in  good  order  and  successful 
operation),  and,  in  short,  took  within  their  grasp  every  dollar 
of  the  subsequently  incoming  revenue  of  the  State. 

!No  insinuation  is  intended  that  they  appropriated  to  their 
own  use  any  portion  of  the  State's  money,  unless  in  the  way 
of  salaries  to  which  they  were  not  entitled,  and  about  which  I 
know  nothing. 

It  is  doubtless  true  that  they  went  out  with  cleaner  hands 
than  did  their  immediate  successors,  the  so-called  Representa 
tives  of  the  People. 

The  charge  is,  that  by  the  strong  hand  of  power  they 
wrested  this  property  from  the  rightful  possession  of  the  consti 
tuted  authorities  of  the  State,  and  applied  it,  in  their  discretion, 
to  public'  uses  unauthorized  by  her  fundamental  and  statutory 
law,  and  subversive  of  her  sovereignty. 

Seeing  that  they  had  then  made  themselves  amenable  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  U.  S.  Supreme  Court,  as  that  Court  had 
been  understood  to  define  it,  in  their  decision  of  the  previous 
case,  and  believing  myself  still  de  jure,  though  not  de  facto, 
Governor  of  the  State,  I  again  went  before  that  tribunal,  alleg 
ing  these  acts  of  progressive  usurpation,  and  seeking  redress 
against  the  wrong-doers. 

The  hearing  of  this  case  would  have  brought  distinctly 
under  the  review  of  the  Court  the  constitutionality  of  the  Re 
construction  Acts,  which  I  especially  desired.  Not  so  the  Court. 
They — or  a  majority  of  them — felt  a  loyal  repugnance  to  that 
delicate  issue.  Leave  to  file  the  bill,  on  application  made  in 
open  Court,  and  upon  a  statement  of  the  allegations  contained 
in  it,  was  unhesitatingly  given,  the  Attorney-General  of  the 
United  States  being  present,  and  making  no  objection  ;  and  the 
bill  was  delivered  to  the  Clerk. 


EX-GOV.  JENKINS  ON  RECONSTRUCTION.  267 

But  this  permission  was  revoked  within  twenty-four  hours, 
as  having  been  improvidently  granted,  although  it  neither  in 
fringed  any  existing  rule  of  practice,  nor  committed  the  Court 
to  any  thing  touching  the  merits  of  the  case.  Then  why  re 
voked  ?  For  no  conceivable  reason  other  than  to  open  that 
case  to  the  operation  of  a  new  rule  of  practice,  adopted  after  the 
permission  to  file  the  bill ;  and  which  produced  unnecessary 
and  vexatious  delay.  Yet  more,  in  subsequent  stages,  addition 
al  delays  were  occasioned  by  exceptional  rulings  of  the  Court ; 
and  at  last  we  were  gravely  told  that  there  did  not  remain,  of 
the  term,  time  enough  to  hear  and  determine  a  motion  for  in 
junction. 

Before  the  commencement  of  the  next  term  (as  the  Court 
had  probably  anticipated)  the  Atlanta  Convention  had  done  its 
work — Meade  and  Ruger  had  disappeared  from  the  scenes,  and 
Bullock  and  his  hungry  horde,  by  force  of  the  bayonet,  though 
under  the  flimsy  veil  of  constitutional  reform,  had  become 
"  lords  of  the  ascendant."  The  suit  before  the  Court  was  not 
of  a  vindictive  character — damages  were  not  sought  against  the 
defendants ;  but  only  a  riddance  from  their  usurpations.  Of 
course,  it  would  have  been  folly  to  pursue  them  after  their  ab 
dication.  The  cause  could  not  have  been  pressed  against  them. 

Let  it  not  be  said  that  the  object  aimed  at  by  this  litigation 
was  accomplished  without  the  action  of  the  Court.  Far  from 
it.  Had  the  Court  pronounced  the  Reconstruction  Acts  uncon 
stitutional,  we  would  not  only  have  been  delivered  from  Meade 
and  Ruger,  but  from  the  whole  Atlanta  Convention.  The  ex 
isting  State  Government  would  have  been  sustained;  Bullock 
would  have  remained  in  the  Express  Office,  and  the  present 
derangement  of  our  finances,  as  well  as  many  other  evils,  would 
have  been  avoided. 

"When  it  is  considered  that  the  enforcement  of  the  Recon 
struction  Acts,  then  in  progress, would  inevitably  overthrow  ex 
isting  State  constitutions,  and  with  them  existing  State  govern 
ments  ;  that  the  Executive  and  Legislative  Departments  of  the 
Federal  Government  were  distinctly  at  issue,  upon  the  question 
of  the  constitutionality  of  those  acts,  and  that  there  was  in  the 
Supreme  Court  a  case  pending,  and  a  motion  in  that  case,  ready 


268  APPENDIX. 

for  a  hearing,  which  called  for  a  judicial  settlement  of  that 
question,  what  can  excuse  a  refusal  to  hear  it  ?  No  more  mo 
mentous  question  was  ever  submitted  to  that  Court.  If  the 
allegations  in  the  bill  failed  to  give  the  Court  jurisdiction,  why 
not  say  so  ? 

If  the  Executive  Department  were  wrong,  and  the  Legisla 
tive  Department  right,  on  that  great  issue,  why  not,  by  a  solemn 
judgment,  terminate  the  controversy,  and  give  quiet  to  the 
country  ? 

They  said  there  did  not  remain,  of  the  term,  time  enough 
for  the  hearing — but  why  not  ? 

The  term  was  not  closed  by  legal  limitation,  but  by  judicial 
discretion.  Were  their  Honors  weary  —  exhausted  by  their 
judicial  labors  ?  Ah !  let  them  contemplate  the  weariness  of 
spirit,  the  exhaustion  of  resources,  since  inflicted  upon  the  peo 
ple  of  Georgia  by  the  misrule  they  were  called  upon  to  arrest, 
but  would  not  even  inquire  into,  and  then  justify,  if  they  can, 
their  delinquency. 

I  entered  that  Court  with  all  the  veneration  for  it  inspired 
by  a  Marshall,  a  Taney,  and  their  compeers.  I  left  it  with  the 
painful  impression,  which  time  has  not  mitigated,  that  the  then 
incumbents  (or  a  majority  of  them)  had,  by  procrastination,  de 
liberately  evaded  a  judgment  they  could  not  have  refused,  with 
out  dishonor  to  themselves ;  yet  could  not  have  rendered,  with 
out  offence  to  the  despotic  and  menacing  faction  then  and  still 
wielding  the  power  of  the  Government. 

It  was  probably  under  the  prompting  of  a  similar  feeling 
that  the  venerable  Justice  Grier,  the  senior  in  years  of  them 
all,  about  the  same  time,  from  his  seat  on  the  Bench,  in  open 
session,  declared  himself  ashamed  of  the  attitude  assumed  by 
the  Court  (in  another  case  resulting  from  post-war  tyranny), 
and,  like  an  old  Roman,  shook  the  reproach  from  his  skirts. 

Here  I  turn  aside  to  notice  a  rumor,  invented  and  circulated 
to  my  prejudice,  by  certain  mendacious  Radicals  of  Georgia — 
that  in  these  suits  I  had,  without  authority  of  law,  expended 
thirty  thousand  dollars  of  the  people's  money.  The  expense 
of  the  first  suit,  instituted  and  ended  while  I  was  still  undis 
puted  Governor  of  Georgia,  amounted  in  all  (including  lawyers' 


EX-GO V.  JENKINS   ON  KECONSTEUCTION.  269 

fees,  Court  costs,  and  printing  expenses,  rendered  necessary  by 
their  rule  of  practice,  and  excluding  my  personal  expenses),  to 
two  thousand  seven  hundred  dollars  ($2,700). 

This  sum  I  paid  out  of  the  contingent  fund,  placed  at  my 
disposal ;  a  balance  of  which  remained  unexpended  on  my  re 
tirement.  That  the  passage  of  the  Reconstruction  Acts,  and  the 
consequent  rape  of  the  sovereignty  of  Georgia,  presented  a 
contingency  unanticipated  by  any,  save  its  unprincipled  authors, 
and  that  it  cried  aloud  for  all  possible  resistance,  no  right-mind 
ed  man  will  deny. 

Having  been  sustained  by  the  opinion  of  eminent  jurists, 
as  to  the  practicability  of  judicial  relief  in  the  premises,  I  am 
content  to  stand  or  fall  by  the  judgment  of  my  Fellow-citizens, 
regarding  the  propriety  of  this  expenditure. 

The  second  suit  cost  the  State  not  one  cent. 

The  smallness  of  the  expenditure  in  the  first  is  attributable 
to  the  public  spirit  and  disinterested  patriotism  of  the  Solicitors 
employed  for  the  State.  I  take  pleasure  in  testifying  in  regard 
to  both  cases,  that  the  people  of  Georgia  owe  a  debt  of  grati 
tude  they  can  never  cancel,  to  Messrs.  Charles  O'  Conor,  Jere 
miah  S.  Black,  Robert  J.  Brent,  David  Dudley  Field,  and  Ed 
gar  Cowan. 

When  I  left  the  Executive  office,  I  took  with  me  the  record 
of  warrants  drawn  upon  the  treasury,  the  book  of  receipts  for 
them,  and  other  papers  therewith  connected,  and  the  seal  of 
the  Executive  Department.  It  was  my  purpose  to  retain  these 
things  in  my  own  custody  until  I  should  see  in  the  Executive 
office  a  rightful  incumbent,  and  then  to  restore  them. 

The  removal  of  the  books  and  papers  was  simply  a  caution 
ary  measure  for  my  own  protection.  Not  so  with  the  seal. 
That  was  a  symbol  of  the  Executive  authority ;  and  although 
devoid  of  intrinsic,  material  value,  was  hallowed  by  a  sentiment 
which  forbade  its  surrender  to  unauthorized  hands.  Afterward, 
while  I  was  in  Washington,  vainly  seeking  the  interposition  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  a  formal  written  demand  was  made  upon 
me  by  Gen.  Ruger  for  a  return  of  these  articles,  with  which  I 
declined  to  comply.  The  books  and  papers  I  herewith  transmit 
to  your  Excellency,  that  they  may  resume  their  place  among 


270  APPENDIX. 

the  archives  of  the  State.  With  them,  I  also  deliver  to  you 
the  seal  of  the  Executive  Department.  I  derive  high  satisfac 
tion  from  the  reflection  that  it  has  never  been  desecrated  by  the 
grasp  of  a  military  Usurper's  hand — never  been  prostituted  to 
authenticate  official  misdeeds  of  an  upstart  Pretender.  Un 
polluted  as  it  came  to  me,  I  gladly  place  it  in  the  hands  of  a 
worthy  son  of  Georgia — her  freely  chosen  Executive — my  first 
legitimate  successor.  Anticipating  as  the  fruits  of  your  Ad 
ministration,  distinguished  honor  to  yourself,  and  lasting  bene 
fits  to  your  confiding  constituents,  I  am, 

Your  Excellency's  ob't  servant, 

C.  J.  JENKESTS. 


GENEKAL   ANALYTICAL   INDEX. 


A. 

ABSOLUTISM,  57,  58,  185,  193,  195. 

ADAMS,  SAMUEL,  194. 

AKERMAN,  AMOS  T.,  Attorney-General  U. 
S.,  reply  to,  by  Stephens,  188. 

ALEXANDER,  ADAM  L.,  Dedication  to,  4. 

AMERICAN  CONFLICT,  138. 

AMES,  FISHER,  135,  194. 

APPEAL,  MEMPHIS,  147,  157. 

ARISTOTLE,  holds  sovereignty  to  be  in 
divisible,  111. 

ARMAGEDDON,  224-25. 

B. 

BALLOT-BOX,  surest  remedy,  51,  57,  136. 

BANK  OF  AUGUSTA  vs.  EARLE,  73,  74. 

BARKSDALE,  HON.  E.,  155,  157  ;  Letter 
from,  to  Mr.  Stephens,  159  ;  Sur-rej cin 
der,  171. 

BEAUREGARD,  GEN.  G.  T.,  Memorandum 
of  Council  of  War  signed  by,  and 
others,  162. 

BLEDSOE,  ALBERT  TAYLOR,  LL.  D.,  10. 

BENJAMIN,  JUDAH  P.,  23. 

BOSTON,  the  "  cause  of  the  cause  of  all," 
132. 

BROUGHAM,  LORD,  48,  198. 

C. 

CALHOUN,  JOHN  C.,  referred  to,  and  de 
fended  against  the  charge  of  having 
denied  the  right  of  secession,  32 ;  Re 
ferred  to,  62,  68,  70 ;  Held  nullification 
to  be  a  Constitutional  remedy,  not 
secession,  113. 

CAUSA  CAUSANS  OF  THE  WAR,  39,  49. 

CENTRALISM,  49,  50,  57,  58,  185,  223-24. 

CHASE,  SALMON  P.,  190  et  scquens. 

CLARION,  The,  155. 

CLAY,  HENRY,  68,  106 ;  Yote  on  Calhoun's 
resolution  of  1837,  declaring  that  the 
Constitution  was  made  by  sovereign 
States,  109. 


CLAYTON,  HON.  ALEXANDER  M.,  on  election 
of  Mr.  Davis  to  the  Presidency,  147. 

COBB,  HOWELL,  147,  154. 

COLQUITT,  GENERAL  ALFRED  H.,  178. 

CONFEDERATE  STATES — Did  not  desire  the 
war  nor  did  they  inaugurate  it,  44. 

COMPACT,  Constitution  of  United  States 
on;  between  States,  67,  118,  126. 

CONSOLIDATION,  49,  50,  57,  58,  185. 

CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  U.  S.,  the  position 
of  Mr.  Webster  that  it  is  not  a  Com 
pact  between  Sovereign  States,  68 ; 
First  Articles  of  Confederation  —  first 
Constitution,  104 ;  Letter  of  Madison 
in  1833,  showing  that  the  Constitution 
was  made  by  the  States  in  their  author 
itative  capacity,  118;  Is  a  compact 
between  Sovereign  States,  126. 

CONSTITUTIONALIST,  Augusta,  Ga.,  137  ; 
Editorial  from,  155,  167,  188. 

COURIER-JOURNAL,  Louisville,  Ky.,  147. 

CRAWFORD,  HON.  MARTIN  J.,  148  ;  Letter 
from,  on  election  of  Mr.  Davis,  151. 

CROWN-OFFICER — would-be,  Mr.  Attorney- 
General  Akerman,  188,  193. 

CURTIS,  GEORGE  T.,  his  review  of  the 
"  Constitutional  View  of  the  Late  War 
Between  the  States,"  etc.,  61 ;  His  four 
grounds  of  criticism  on  the  "  Constitu 
tional  View,"  73  ;  The  extent  to  which 
he  holds  the  States  to  be  sovereign,  77 ; 
Rejoinder  by,  114. 

D. 

DAVIS,  JEFFERSON,  29;  Election  to  the 
Presidency  of  the  Confederate  States, 
147 ;  Letter  from,  to  Gen.  Joseph  E. 
Johnston  on  Confederate  inactivity  in 
the  Fall  of  1861,  155. 

DEBATES,  ELLIOT'S,  referred  to,  24. 

DECLARATION  OF  INDEPENDENCE,  referred 
to,  23. 

DE  TOCQUEVILLE,  M.,  referred  to,  34,  48. 


272 


ANALYTICAL  INDEX. 


DRAPER,  DR.  WILLIAM,  History  by,  con 
tains  forged  speech,  184. 


ELLIOT'S  DEBATES,  referred  to,  24. 
ELLIS,  CHARLES,  177. 
ELLSWORTH,  OLIVER,  135,  194. 
EMPIRE,  60,  185,  193,  195. 

F. 

FEDERALIST,  referred  to,  27,  28. 
FILMER,  SIR  ROBERT,  referred  to,  106. 
FINEGAN,  GEN.  JOSEPH,  178. 
FORCE  BILL,  68. 

FORNEY,  COL.  JOHN  TV.,  Stephens'  reply 
to,  on  Forged  Speech,  180. 

G. 

GREELEY,  HON.  HORACE,  137. 
GROTIUS,  holds  sovereignty  to  be  indivis 
ible,  111. 

H. 

HABEAS  CORPUS,  writ  of,  145. 
HALLAM — on  the  "aggressor  in  a  war," 

44. 

HAMILTON,  ALEXANDER,  135,  194,  195. 
HANCOCK,  JOHN,  194. 
HAYNE,  HON.  ROBERT  Y.,  63,  65. 
HENRY,  PATRICK,  135,  209. 
HOLCOMBE,  JAMES  P.,  23. 
HUME,  DAVID,  referred  to,  106. 

I. 

IMPERIALISM,  50,  185,  193,  195. 
INAUGURATION  OF  THE  WAR,  42,  43. 


JACKSON,  ANDREW,  Farewell  Address,  58 ; 
Proclamation  of  1832,  63;  Did  not 
approve  Webster's  speech  made  in 
1833,  did  approve  Virginia  Resolutions 
of '98,  Ky.,  107,  128,  194,  195. 

JEFFERSON,  THOMAS,  referred  to,  34,  46, 
47,  48,  57,  137,  194. 

JENKINS,  CHARLES  J.,  Appendix  No.  III. 

JOHNSTON,  GEN.  JOSEPH  E.,  Letter  from, 
to  Mr.  Davis  on  Confederate  Inactivity 
in  Fall  of  1861,  156  ;  Memorandum  of 
Council  of  War,  signed  by,  and  others, 
162. 

L. 

LEADER,  THE  BALTIMORE,  9. 

LEE,  BENJAMIN  W ATKINS,  106. 

LIBBER,  DR.  FRANCIS,  referred  to,  24; 
Holds  sovereignty  to  be  indivisible,  112. 

LINCOLN,  ABRAHAM,  137,  201,  213. 

LIVINGSTON,  EDWARD,  63,  130. 


LOSSING,  BENSON  J.,  History  by,  contains 

forged  speech,  184. 
LUMPKIN,   JOSEPH    HENRY,   referred    to, 

105. 

M. 

MACKENZIE,  SIR  GEORGE,  referred  to,  106. 

MADISON,  JAMES,  referred  to,  34,  57, 194; 
Letter  from,  to  Webster,  on  his  speech 
in  1833,  118,  129. 

MAHON,  LORD,  referred  to,  25. 

MANASSAS,  Confederate  inactivity  after 
the  battle  of,  in  1861,  155. 

MARSHALL,  JOHN,  192,  194,  195. 

MEMORANDUM  OF  COUNCIL  OF  WAR,  signed 
by  Gens.  Smith,  Beauregard,  and  John 
ston,  162. 

METAPHYSICS,  not  applicable  to  the  facts 
connected  with  the  history  of  the  Fed 
eral  Government,  56. 

MONARCHY,  57. 

MONROE,  JAMES,  57. 

MORNING  CHRONICLE,  Washington,  D.  C., 
forged  speech,  180. 

MUDDLE,  117,  128. 

N. 

NAPOLEON  III.,  his  "  Life  of  Julius  Caesar," 
referred  to,  25. 

NATION,  what  kind  of  a  Nation  the  Fed 
eral  Union  constitutes,  46,  47. 

NATIONAL  INTELLIGENCER,  Washington, 
D.  C.,  39. 

NEW  ERA,  Reply  to,  by  Stephens,  196  ;  Re 
joinder  by,  207  ;  Sur-rejoinder  to,  214. 

NICHOLS,  HON.  S.  S.,  39  ;  Reply  to  his 
article  by  Mr.  Stephens,  40,  et  sequens  ; 
His  rejoinder  to  Mr.  Stephens,  50  ;  Mr. 
Stephens*  sur-rejoinder  to  him,  53, 137. 

NILES'  REGISTER,  referred  to,  23. 

NULLIFICATION,  63,  68,  106,  113,  118. 

0. 

OLUSTEE,  OR  OCEAN  POND,  battle  of,  177. 
ORIGIN  OF  THE  WAR,  42,  43. 
ORTHODOX  STATE  RIGHT  PRINCIPLE,  45. 

P. 

PARDON,  58. 

PARSONS,  THEOPHILUS,  194. 
PAUL,  ST.,  59. 
PEACE  CONGRESS,  190. 
PUFFENDORFF,  holds  sovereignty  to  be  in. 
divisible,  111. 


RALLE'S  TREATISE  ON  THE  CONSTITUTION, 
referred  to,  33. 


GENERAL  ANALYTICAL  INDEX. 


273 


RANDALL,  JAMES  R.,  155,  1G2,  167. 

REPUBLICAN,  SAVANNAH,  Ga.,  editorial 
from,  177. 

RESOLUTIONS,  Kentucky,  of  '98,  48,  58, 
135,  194  ;  First,  of  Mr.  Calhoun  in  the 
Senate  in  1837,  108 ;  Sustained  by 
eighteen  States  against  six,  109. 

REVIEW,  THE  SOUTHERN,  10. 

S. 

SECESSION,  justification  of,  55  ;  Abandon 
ment  of,  55,  226  ;  Not  a  living  issue, 
56  ;  The  right  of,  not  Constitutional  or 
Revolutionary,  but  Sovereign,  18  et  se- 
quetu,  31,  44,  51. 

SHERMAN,  ROGER,  135. 

SMITH,  GEN.  GUSTAVUS  W. — Memorandum 
of  Council  of  War  signed  by,  and 
others,  162. 

SMITH,  JAMES  M.,  Appendix  No.  III. 

SNEED,  JAMES  R,,  178. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA,  Act  on  Nullification  Or 
dinance,  137. 

SOUTHERN  REVIEW,  THE,  10. 

SOVEREIGNTY — Where  it  resides  in  the 
American  system,  45  ;  Daniel  Webster 
upon,  75  ;  Indivisible  in  itself,  just  as 
the  mind  is  in  the  individual  organism, 
111 ;  May  put  restraints  upon  its  ex 
ercise  without  parting  with  any  portion 
of  its  essence,  113;  Popular  Sov 
ereignty,  137,  144. 

STATESMAN,  THE  BALTIMORE,  9. 

STEPHENS,  ALEXANDER  H.,  review  by,  of 
Dr.  Bledsoe's  Review,  10;  Reply  of,  to 
Judge  Nicholas,  39 ;  Sur-rejoinder  to 
same,  53  ;  Reply  by,  to  Mr.  Curtis'  Re 
view,  92  ;  Comments  by,  on  Webster's 
speech  in  the  case  of  the  Bank  of  Au 
gusta  vs.  Earle,  and  at  Capon  Springs, 
96,  99 ;  On  Force  Bill,  102 ;  His  con 
sistency  on  the  Right  of  Secession,  13, 
14  et  sequens ;  On  Mr.  Lincoln's  elec 
tion  as  a  just  cause  of  Secession,  14  ; 
Secession  maintained  by  him,  not  as  a 
Constitutional  or  Revolutionary,  but  a 
Sovereign  Right,  18  et  scquens,  31,  44  ; 
Sur-rejoinder  by,  to  Mr.  Curtis,  123; 
Reply  by,  to  Horace  Greeley's  criticism, 
137  ;  Reply  by,  to  Alexander  M.  Clay 
ton,  149 ;  Reply  and  rejoinder  to 
Barksdale,  169  ;  Rebuttal  to  same,  163  ; 
On  battle  of  Olustee  or  Ocean  Pond, 
177;  On  forged  speech,  180;  Speech 
by  him  in  Secession  Convention,  186  ; 


Reply  to  the  New  Era,  196  ;  Rejoinder 
to,  by  same,  207 ;  Sur-rejoinder  to,  214  ; 
Union  speech  before  the  Georgia  Leg 
islature,  202,  203  ;  Speech  by,  in  1834, 
204-206. 

STEPHENS,  LINTON,  226 ;  Speeches  on  Re 
construction,  Appendix,  Nos.  I.  and 
II. 

STORY,  JOSEPH,  132. 

T. 

TARIFF,  Compromise  Bill  of,  in  1833, 106. 
THEORY,  Government  of  U.  S.  not  subject- 
matter  of,  215-217. 
THUCYDIDES,  referred  to,  21,  22,  25. 
TOOMBS,  ROBERT,  23,  147,  152,  153. 
TRIBUNE,  NEW  YORK,  137. 
TUCKER'S  COMMENTARIES,  referred  to,  33. 

U. 

UNION,  The,  of  the  States,  Federal  and 
Conventional,  31. 

V. 

VATTEL,  quoted  by  Mr.  Webster,  76,  221 ; 
Holds  Sovereignty  to  be  indivisible, 
111. 

W. 

WADE,  BENJAMIN  F.,  137. 

WASHINGTON,  GEORGE,  57 ;  Styled  the 
Union  a  "Confederated  Republic," 
131,  194. 

WEBSTER,  DANIEL,  referred  to,  28,  61,  63; 
His  four  propositions  on  which  rests 
his  assumption  that  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  is  "not  a  com- 
pact  between  Sovereign  States,"  69 ; 
His  reply  to  Mr.  Calhoun,  in  1833,  70; 
His  position  in  the  case  of  the  Bank 
of  Augusta  vs.  Earle,  7?,  74,  75 ;  His 
letter  to  the  Barings,  79 ;  His  speech 
at  Capon  Springs,  in  which  he  held 
that  the  Constitution  was  "  a  compact 
between  States,"  and  that  a  bargain 
cannot  be  broken  on  one  side  and  still 
bind  the  other  side,  his  position  that, 
81 ;  State  Secession  a  Revolutionary 
right,  90  ;  Letter  to,  from  Madison  on 
his  speech  in  1833,  118. 

WEBSTER,  DR.  NOAH,  referred  to,  34 ; 
Mutilation  of  his  Dictionary,  220,  221. 

WORLD,  THE  NEW  YORK,  Letters  to,  hi 
the  Curtis  Controversy,  61,  91,  114, 
123. 


THE   END. 


18 


Recent  Scientific  Plications  liy  D.  Ageton  &  Co.     " 

LYELL.—  PRINCIPLES  OF  GEOLOGY  (Vol.  I);  or,  the  Modern  Changes  of  the  Earth 
and  its  Inhabitants  considered,  as  illustrative  of  Geology.  By  Sir  CHARLES  LYELL, 
Bart,  M.  A.,  F.  E.  S.  In  two  volumes.  8vo. 

This  is  a  new  edition  (the  eleventh)  of  this  great  work.  It  has  been  entirely  and  carefully  re 
vised,  and  is  illustrated  with  numerous  Maps,  Plates,  and  Woodcuts.  Vol.  II.  will  be  issued  during 
the  present  year. 

SCHELLEN.— SPECTRUM  ANALYSIS,  in  its  Application  to  Terrestrial  Substances, 

and  the  Physical  Constitution  of  the  Heavenly  Bodies.     Familiarly  explained  by  Dr. 

H.  SCHELLEN,  Director  der  Realschule  I.  0.  Cologne,  Ritter  des  Rothen  Adlerordens  IV. 

KL.,  Associate  of  several  Learned  Societies.     Translated  from  the  second  enlarged 

and  revised  German  edition,  by  Jane  and  Caroline  Lassell.     Edited,  with  Notes,  by 

Wm.  Huggins,  LL.  D.,  D.  C.  L.,  F.  R.  S.     With  numerous  Woodcuts,  Colored  Plates, 

and  Portraits ;  also,  Angstrom's  and  KirchhofFs  Maps.  455  pp.  8vo.  Cloth.  Price,  $6. 

The  colored  plates  illustrating  this  edition  of  the  work,  requiring  great  care  in  printing,  were 

executed  in  London. 

"  This  admirable  work  does  credit  to,  or  should  we  say  is  worthy  of.  the  author,  the  trans 
lators,  and  the  editor.  The  first  part  treats  on  the  artificial  sources  of  high  degrees  of  heat  and 
light ;  the  second  on  Spectrum  Analysis  in  its  application  to  the  heavenly  bodies.  We  must  ap 
prove  the  method  followed  in  the  translation,  and  by  the  editor.  In  many  translations  the  views 
of  the  author  are  suppressed,  in  order  that  the  views  of  the  translator  or  editor  may  be  expounded ; 
but  here  Dr.  Huggins,  however  leniently  such  a  fault  might  have  been  looked  upon  with  him,  has 

Ecrmitted  the  author's  views  to  remain  intact,  clearly  stating  his  own,  and  wherein  lies  the  dif- 
jrence."—  Chemical  News, 

LUBBOCK.—  PRE-HISTORIC  TIMES,  as  illustrated  by  Ancient  Remains,  and  the 
Manners  and  Customs  of  Modern  Savages.  By  Sir  JOHN  LUBBOCK,  Bart,  M.  P.,  Vice- 
President  of  the  Royal  Society ;  of  the  British  Association,  etc.  1  vol.,  8vo,  640  pp. 
Plates  and  Illustrations.  Cloth.  Price,  $5.00. 

"  Fully  satisfied  that  religion  and  science  cannot  in  reality  be  at  variance,  I  have  striven,  in 
the  present  publication,  to  follow  out  the  rule  laid  down  by  the  Bishop  of  London  in  his  excel 
lent  lecture,  delivered  last  year  at  Edinburgh:  'The  man  of  science,'  says  Dr.  Tait,  'ought  to  go 
on  honestly,  patiently,  diffidently,  observing  and  stirring  up  his  observations,  and  carrying  nis 
reasonings  unflinchingly  to  their  legitimate  conclusions,  convinced  that  it  would  be  treason  to 
the  majesty  at  once  of  science  and  of  religion,  if  he  sought  to  help  either  by  swerving  ever  so  lit 
tle  from  the  straight  rule  of  truth.'  "— Extract  from  Preface. 

HUXLEY.— ANATOMY  OF  VERTEBRATED  ANIMALS.  By  THOMAS  HENRY  HUX 
LEY,  LL.  D.,  F.  R.  S.,  author  of  "  Man's  Place  in  Nature,"  "  On  the  Origin  of  Species,". 
"Lay  Sermons  and  Addresses,"  etc.  1  vol.,  12mo.  Cloth.  Price,  $2.50. 

The  former  works  of  Professor  Huxley  leave  no  room  for  doubt  as  to  the  importance  and  value 
of  his  new  volume.  It  is  one  which  will  be  very  acceptable  to  all  who  are  interested  in  the  subject 
of  which  it  treats. 

"This  long-expected  work  will  be  cordially  -welcomed  by  all  students  and  teachers  of  Compar 
ative  Anatomy  as  a  compendious,  reliable,  and,  notwithstanding  its  small  dimensions,  most  com 
prehensive  guide  on  the  subject  of  which  it  treats.  To  praise  or  to  criticise  the  work  of  so  ac 
complished  a  master  of  his  favorite  science  would  be  equally  out  of  place.  It  is  enough  to  say 
that  it  realizes,  in  a  remarkable  degree,  the  anticipations  which  have  been  formed  of  it ;  and  that 
it  presents  an  extraordinary  combination  of  wide,  general  views,  with  the  clear,  accurate,  and 
succinct  statement  of  a  prodigious  number  of  individual  facts." — Nature. 

NICHOLSON.— A  MANUAL  OF  ZOOLOGY,  for  the  Use  of  Students.  With  a  Gen 
eral  Introduction  on  the  Principles  of  Zoology.  By  HENRY  ALLEYNE  NICHOLSON,  M.  D., 
D.  Sc.,  M.  A.,  Ph.  D.  (Gb'tt),  F.  R.  S.  E.,  F.  G.  S.,  Professor  of  Natural  History  and 
Botany  in  University  College,  Toronto ;  formerly  Lecturer  on  Natural  History  in  the 
Medical  School  of  Edinburgh ;  Vice-President  of  the  Geological  Society  of  Edinburgh. 
Second  edition,  revised  and  considerably  enlarged.  1  vol.,  8vo,  673  pages. 

DESCHANEL,— ELEMENTARY  TREATISE  ON  NATURAL  PHILOSOPHY.  By 
A.  PRIVAT  DESCHANEL,  formerly  Professor  of  Physics  in  the  Lycee  Louis-le-Grand, 
Inspector  of  the  Academy  of  Paris.  Translated  and  edited,  with  extensive  additions, 
by  J.  D.  EVERETT,  Professor  of  Natural  Philosophy  in  the  Queen's  College,  Belfast.  To 
be  completed  in  Four  Parts.  Part  I.  Mechanics,  Hydrostatics,  and  Pneumatics; 
Part  II.  Heat,  and  Part  III.  Physics,  are  now  ready  in  separate  volumes.  Copiously 
illustrated.  8vo.  Flexible  cloth.  Price,  $2.00  each. 

HINTON.— MAN  AND  HIS  DWELLING-PLACE.     By  JAMES  HINTON,  author  of  the 

"  Mystery  of  Pain."     1  vol.,  12mo.     Cloth.     Price,  $1.75. 

The  author  of  this  work  holds  a  unique  position  among  the  thinkers  of  the  age.  He  brings  to 
the  discussion  of  man  and  Nature,  and  the  higher  problems  of  human  life,  the  latest  and  most 
thorough  scientific  preparation,  and  constantly  employs  the  later  dynamic  philosophy  in  dealing 
with  them.  But  he  is  broader  than  the  scientific  school  which  he  recognizes,  but  with  him  the 
moral  and  religious  elements  of  man  are  supreme.  He  conjoins  strict  science  with  high  spiritu 
ality  of  view.  "Man  and  his  Dwelling-Place"  is  here  rewritten  and  compressed,  and  presents, 
in  a  pointed  and  attractive  style,  original  aspects  of  the  most  engaging  questions  of  the  time. 


icatioiis  of  D.  Apleton  &  Co. 


DARWIN.— THE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES 
by  Means  of  Natural  Selection,  or  the 
Preservation  of  Favored  Races  in  the 
Struggle  for  Life.  New  and  revised 
edition,  with  Additions.  With  Copious 
Index.  1  vol.,  12mo.  Cloth.  Price, 
$2.00. 

THE    DESCENT    OF    MAN,    and 

Selection  in  Relation  to  Sex,  With 
many  Illustrations.  2  vols.,  12mo. 
Cloth.  Price,  $4.00. 

This  work,  in  which  the  author  expresses  his 
peculiar  views  boldly  and  forcibly,  lias  been 
widely  read  and  criticised,  and,  whatever  may 
be  the  opinion  arrived  at  in  regard  to  his  theo 
ries,  the  reader  cannot  fail  to  obtain  pleasure 
and  profit  in  its  perusal. 

JOURNAL  OF  RESEARCHES  into 

the  Natural  History  and  Geology  of  the 
Countries  visited  during  the  Voyage  of 
H.  M.  S.  Beagle  round  the  World.  A 
new  edition,  uniform  with  "  Origin  of 
Species  "  and  "  Descent  of  Man.  1  vol., 
12mo.  Cloth.  Price,  $2.00. 

An  interesting  account  of  a  voyage  of  scien 
tific  research  and  discovery. 

HUXLEY.— MAN'S  PLACE  IN  NA 
TURE.  1  vol.,  12mo.  Cloth.  Price, 
$1.25. 

ON  THE   ORIGIN  OF   SPECIES. 

1  vol.,  12mo.     Cloth.     Price,  $1.00. 

LAY   SERMONS,    Addresses,   and 

Reviews.    1  vol.,  12mo.    Cloth.   Price, 

$1.75. 

ELEMENTS    OF    PHYSIOLOGY, 

and  Hygiene.  By  T.  H.  Huxley  and 
W.  J.  Youinans.  1  vol.,  12mo.  $1.75. 

MORE  CRITICISMS  ON  DARWIN, 

and  Administrative  Nihilism.  1  vol., 
12mo.  Price,  50  cents. 

Valuable  to  all  who  are  interested  in  scientific 
Btudy  or  reading. 


PROCTOR  (R.  A.)— OTHER  WORLDS 

THAN  OURS  :  the  Plurality  of  Worlds, 
Studied  under  the  Light  of  Recent  Sci 
entific  Researches.  By  Richard  A. 
Proctor,  B.  A.,  F.  R.  A.  S.,  author  of 
"  Saturn  and  its  System,"  "  Sun  Views 
of  the  Earth,"  "  Half  Hours  with  the 
Telescope,"  etc.  With  Illustrations, 
some  colored.  12mo.  Cloth.  Price, 
$2.50. 


PROCTOR  (R.  A.) -LIGHT  SCIENCE 
FOR  LEISURE  HOURS.  A  Series  of 
Familiar  Essays  on  Scientific  Subjects, 
Natural  Phenomena,  etc.  1  vol.,  12mo. 
Cloth.  Price,  $1.75. 

An  instructive  and  entertaining  volume  to 
the  student  of  science,  and  of  astronomy. 

SPENCER  (HERBERT).-EDUCA- 

TION,  Intellectual,  Moral,  and  Physi 
cal.     12mo.     Cloth.     Price,  $1.25. 

FIRST  PRINCIPLES.    12mo.  Cloth. 


Price,  $2.50. 


—  CLASSIFICATION  OF  THE   SCI 
ENCES.     8vo.    Paper.     Price,  25  cts. 

ESSAYS  :  Moral,  Political,  and  ^Es 
thetic.  1  vol.,  12mo.  Cloth.  Price, 
$2.50. 

—  ILLUSTRATIONS    OF    UNIVER 
SAL  PROGRESS.     A  Selection  of  his 
best  Papers.      1  vol.,  12mo.      Cloth. 
Price,  $2.50. 

—  SOCIAL   STATICS;   or,   the   Con 
ditions  Essential  to  Human  Happiness 
Specified,  and  the  First  of  them  Devel 
oped.      1   vol.,    12mo.     Cloth.     Price, 

&2.50. 


—  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  BIOLOGY, 
2  vols.,  12mo.     Cloth.     Price,  $5.00. 


THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  PSYCHOL 
OGY:  Part  I.  Data  of  Psychology. 
1  vol.  Paper.  Price,  75  cents ;  Part 
II.  The  Inductions  of  Psychology. 
1  vol.,  8vo.  Paper.  Price,  75  cents ; 
Part  III.  General  Synthesis  ;  Part  IV. 
Special  Synthesis.  Paper.  Price, 
$1.00;  Part  V.  Physical  Synthesis. 
Paper.  Price,  75  cents. 

THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  PSYCHOL 
OGY.  Vol.  I,  8vo.  Cloth.  Price,  $2.50. 

WORKS.     7  vols.,  8vo.     Half  Calf. 

Price,  $28.00. 

The  works  of  Herbert  Spencer  have  attained 
a  prominence  and  a  reputation  in  America 
even  greater  than  in  England,  and  he  stands  the 
icknowledged  leader  of  a  school  of  philosophy 
,vhich  counts  many  students  and  thinkers 
among  his  followers. 


ications  of  D.  Apjleton  &  Co. 


TYNDALL.— HEAT    AS  A   MODE   OF 
MOTION.    1  vol.,  12mo.    Cloth.  Price, 

$2.00. 

ON    SOUND :  A  Course   of  Eight 

Lectures  delivered  at  the  Royal  Institu 
tion  of  Great  Britain.  By  John  Tyn- 
dall,  LL.  D.,  F.  R.  S.  Illustrated.  1 
vol.,  12mo.  Cloth.  Price,  $2.00. 

FRAGMENTS  OF  SCIENCE  FOR 

UNSCIENTIFIC  PEOPLE.  A  Series 
of  Detached  Essays.  Lectures,  and  Re 
views.  12mo.  Cloth.  Price,  $2.00. 

LIGHT      AND      ELECTRICITY : 

Notes  of  Two  Courses  of  Lectures  be 
fore  the  Royal  Institution  of  Great 
Britain.  12mo.  Cloth.  Price,  $1.25. 

HOURS  OF  EXERCISE  IN  THE 

ALPS.  With  Illustrations.  12nio. 
Cloth.  Price,  $2.00. 

ON  RADIATION.      The   "Rede" 

Lecture  delivered  in  the  Senate  House 
before  the  University  of  Cambridge, 
England,  on  Tuesday,  May  16,  1865. 
Author  of  "  Heat  considered  as  a  Mode 
of  Motion."  1  vol.,  12mo.  Cloth. 
Price,  50  cents. 

Important  works  by  one  of  England's  great 
est  scientists. 


YOUMANS  (E.  L.)— CLASS-BOOK  OF 
CHEMISTRY.  New  edition.  12mo. 
Price,  $1.75. 

ATLAS  OF  CHEMISTRY.     1  vol., 

4to.     Cloth.     Price,  $3.00. 

CHART  OF  CHEMISTRY,  on  Roll 
er.  Price,  $8.00. 

HAND-BOOK    OF    HOUSEHOLD 

SCIENCE.     12mo.     Price,  $1.75. 
THE  CULTURE  DEMANDED  BY 


MODERN  LIFE :  A  Series  of  Address 
es  and  Arguments  on  the  Claims  of 
Scientific  Education.  Edited,  with  an 
Introduction  on  Mental  Discipline  in 
Education,  by  Edward  L.  Youmans, 
M.  D.  1  vol.,  12iao.  Cloth.  Price, 
$2.00. 

CORRELATION  AND  CONSER 
VATION  OF. FORCES:  A  Series  of 
Expositions  by  Prof.  Grove,  Prof.  Helm- 
holtz,  Dr.  Mayer,  Dr.  Faraday,  Prof. 
Liebig,  and  Dr.  Carpenter.  Edited, 
with  an  Introduction  and  Brief  Bio 
graphical  Notices  of  the  Chief  Promot 
ers  of  the  New  Views,  by  Edward  L. 
Youmans,  M.  D.  1  vol.,  12mo.  Cloth. 
Price,  $2.00. 

The  Atlantic  Montlily  says  of  Professor  You 
mans  :  "  His  time  seems  to  be  wholly  devoted  to 
the  disinterested  service  of  science  and  of  his 
fellow-men." 


D.  Appleton  &  Co.  have  just  publislied : 

HOW  THE  WORLD  WAS  PEOPLED, 

A  TREATISE  OX  ETHIOLOGY. 

By   tlie    Rev.    EI>WARI>    FONTAINE, 

PROFESSOR  OF    THEOLOGY  AND   NATURAL     SCIENCE  ;     A    MEMBER  OF  TOE    NEW  YORK  HISTORICAL 
SOCIETY,  AND  OF  THE  ACADEMIES  OP  SCIENCES   OF  NEW   ORLEANS,  BALTIMORE,  ETC. 

This  learned,  but  simple  and  intelligible,  book  is  the  result  of  more  than  thirty  years'  careful 
study  of  ancient  and  modern  history,  and  the  archaeology  of  all  nations.  By  his  independent  re 
searches  in  unexplored  fields,  aided  by  a  thorough  knowledge  of  geology,  physical  geography,  and 
natural  history,  as  far  as  those  sciences  have  been  matured  by  others,  he  has  succeeded,  he  thinks, 
In  so  arranging  incontrovertible  facts  as  to  settle  satisfactorily  the  disputed  question  of  the  origin 
and  antiquity  of  mankind.  His  researches  have  brought  him  to  the  conclusion  of  Alexander  von 
Humboldt,  and  his  brother  William,  that  we  are  all  the  descendants  of  one  originally  created  pair, 
as  the  Bible  teache?.  This  places  him  in  opposition  to  Sir  Roderick  Mnrchison,  Professor  Agassiz, 
Mr.  Darwin,  and  many  other  eminent  naturalists.  Mr.  Fontaine's  book  will  commend  itself 
especially  to  students  of  theology,  clergymen  of  all  churches,  and  the  professors  of  colleges. 
Every  argument  heretofore  advanced  against  the  biblical  account  of  the  origin  of  man  is  fairly 
stated,  and  even  more  strongly  propounded  than  by  its  advocates.  It  is  then  replied  to  candidly 
and  clearly,  and,  as  the  author  thinks,  conclusively.  He  seems  to  believe  that  no  comprehensive 
and  honest  reasoner  can  read  the  book  carefully  withoxit  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Mosaic 
cosmogony  is  correct,  and  that  the  account  given  in  Genesis  of  the  origin  of  mankind  is  true.. 


ications  of  D.  AplGtoii  &  Co. 


Allen's  Philosophy  of  the  Mechanics  of  Nature.  1  vol.,  8vo.  .$  3.50 
Antisell's  Manufacture  of  Hydro-Cartoon  Oils.   1  vol.,  8vo. .     2.00 

Appletons'  Cyclopaedia  of  Drawing.     1  vol.,  8vo 10.00 

"  Dictionary  of  Mechanics.     2  vols.,  8vo 18.00 

Architecture  of  Victorian  Age.     1  vol.,  4to,  half  calf 12.00 

Bain's  Mental  Science.     1  vol.,  12mo 1.75 

««        Moral  Science.      1  vol.,  12mo 1.75 

«*         Senses  and  Intellect.        1  vol.,  8vo •  5.00 

Bourne's  Catechism  Steam-Engine.     1  vol.,  12mo 1.75 

"  Hand-Book     ««  "  1  vol.,  12mo 1.75 

"  Treatise  on     «  "  1  vol.,  4to 15.00 

"  "  Screw  Propellers,  etc.     1  vol.,  4to. ..  24.00 

Clark's  Mind  in  Nature.     1  vol.,  8vo 3.50 

Cleveland  &  Backus's  Architecture.     1  vol.,  8vo 4.00 

Correlation  and  Conservation  of  Forces.  A  Series  of  Exposi 
tions  by  Professor  GROVE,  Professor  HELMHOLTZ,  Dr.  MAYER,  Dr.  FARADAY, 
Professor  LIEBIG,  and  Dr.  CARPENTER.  Edited,  with  Introduction,  by  E.  L. 

YOUMANS,  M.  D.     1  vol.,  12mo 2.00 

I>ovrning's  Architecture.     1  vol.,  8vo 6.00 

Ede  on  Steel.      1  vol.,  12mo 1.50 

EglolFstein's  Geology  and  Physical  Geography  of  Mex- 

'  ico.     1  vol.,  8vo 3.00 

Ennis's  Origin  of  the  Stars.     1  vol.,  12mo 2.00 

Enthoffcr's  Manual  of  Topography.     1vol.     Text  and  Atlas ...   15.00 

Gillespie's  Surveying.     1  vol.,  8vo 3.00 

66  on  levelling,  Topography,  etc.     1  vol.,  8vo 2.00 

Gosse  on  the  Microscope.     1  vol.,  12mo 1.50 

Haupt  on.  Bridge  Construction.     1  vol.,  8vo 3.50 

Henck's  Field-Book  for  Railway  Engineers.     1vol.,  12mo.     2.50 

Holly's  Country  Seats.      1  vol.,  8vo 5.00 

Knapeu's   Mechanic's  Assistant.      1  vol.,  12mo. 1.50 

BL,iel>ig's  Natural  LaTVs  of  Husbandry.     1  vol.,  12mo 1.50 

L.u1>1>ock's  Origin  of  Civilization.     1  vol.,  12mo 2.00 

Masury  on  House  Painting.     1  vol.,  12mo 1.50 

Mivart's  Genesis  of  Species.     1  vol.,  12mo 1.75 

Overman's  Metallurgy.      1  vol.,  8vo 5.00 

Bitter's  Comparative  Geography  of  Palestine.  4  vols.,  8vo. .   14.00 

Boscoe's  Spectrum  Analysis.     1  vol.,  8vo 9.00 

Bussell's  (J.  Scott)  Naval  Architecture.      1  vol.,  folio 50.00 

Simonin's  Underground  I^ife.      1  vol.,  imp.  8vo,  half  morocco 16.00 

Templeton's  Mechanic's  Pocket  Companion.  1  vol.,  16mo. . .     2.00 

Truran  on  Iron.      1  vol.,  8vo 10.00 

lire's  IMctionavy  of  Arts,  Manufactures,  and  Mines.     3 

vols.,  8vo 15.00 

Wilson's  Mechanic's    and   Builder's    Price-Book.     1  vol., 

12mo. .  1.75 


***  Descriptive  Catalogues  furnished  on  application.    Any  of  the  above  works  mailed  free  on 
receipt  of  price.    Remittances  by  postal  money-order  to  the  Publishers, 

D.  APPLETON  &  CO.,  549  &  551  Broadway,  N.  Y. 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

202  Main  Library 


LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

1  -month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405 

6-month  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books  to  Circulation 

Desk 

Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  due  date 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

t 

REG.  CIR.     FFR  9.  3    |979 

Jim  2  *  20( 

0 

L. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
FORM  NO.  DD6,  40m,  3/78  BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


LD  21-lUUm-v, 


335920 

1 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


